Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Suzanne Fields :: Townhall.com Columnist
Saints, sinners and bigots
by Suzanne Fields
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


When my mother died at the grand old age of 91 she left behind a long letter to her children, filled with loving reflections and one exhortation. "I think if I had one wish for all of you other than a long and healthy life," she wrote, "it would be that you give the grandchildren a little religion. Something that has lasted for over 6,000 years has to have something going for it."

She knew that her assimilated Jewish family was tempted by the secular culture. At the end of her long life she was puzzled by how difficult it had become for the generation following hers to integrate religious faith into their lives.

Whether Jewish or Christian, organized religion has fallen on hard times. Millions of Americans attend synagogue, church and cathedral services every week, but even among the devout, God is less integrated into daily life than in earlier generations.

The Founding Fathers, tutored intellectually and sometimes theologically in the Judeo-Christian tradition, counted on the wall separating church and state to insulate religion. This would allow the faithful to go about their business of spreading their good news freely. Skeptics would always assert their prejudices in the public square, but intolerance would be exposed as bigotry.

References to God -- such as "In God We Trust" -- are commonplace in our history, indeed right on the money. What astonishes me is that people of faith rarely sneer at nonbelievers, but scientifically oriented cosmopolites rarely hesitate to mock believers. Evangelical Christians are routinely scapegoated with impunity, as if they're troglodyte know-nothings unified in a cabal to promote ignorance.

George W. Bush is ridiculed as chaplain-in-chief because he openly speaks of his faith. Does anyone doubt his sincerity? Kevin Phillips, betraying an ignorance of American history, writes in The Washington Post that under George W.'s leadership, "The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history." Gerhard Schroeder, the former chancellor of Germany, writes in his memoir that what bothered him about the president "and in a certain way made me suspicious despite the relaxed atmosphere, was again and again in our discussions how much this president described himself as 'God-fearing.'" (Would that an earlier generation of Germans nourished a little fear of God.)

Critics of evangelical Christians usually lump evangelicals together as if they all walk in lockstep with Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson. The evangelicals I know are an independent lot who take pride in their ornery resistance to taking orders from anybody, and hold varying views on gun control, capital punishment, stem cell research, evolution and just everything else except, as one Baptist friend says, "deep-water baptism" and the right to do as conscience pleases.

Andrew Sullivan, author of "The Conservative Soul," is a lump-'em-all-together" critic, snidely referring to the evangelicals as "Christianists" as if they're looking for an office tower to ram a jetliner into. David Brooks, reviewing the Sullivan book, writes: "When a writer uses quotations from Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and the 'Left Behind' series to capture the religious and political currents in modern America, then I know I can put that piece of writing down, because the author either doesn't know what he is talking about or is arguing in bad faith."

Evangelical Christians are attacked with the derision critics would never apply to Catholics, Jews or atheists. Conservative Protestants and other Christians voted overwhelmingly for the president when their only alternative was John Kerry, but their values, though nurtured by faith, are hardly synonymous with religion.

Belief in God begets a great variety in the thinking of thinking men and often acts as a check on behavior. So does conscience. After the Enlightenment emphasized reason as a guide, reason was nevertheless linked to religion. Woodrow Wilson, a preacher's son, a professor and the president of Princeton, was one of our most intellectual presidents, and observed that the Bible "reveals every man to himself as a distinct moral agent, responsible not to men, not even to those men whom he has put over him in authority, but responsibility through his own conscience to his Lord and Maker." He was a Presbyterian and, like the Methodist George Bush, saw his religious belief as inspiration and sustenance for his political decisions.

Religion, like reason, has its inconsistencies. Harry Truman, a church-going Baptist, was fond of contradictory references. He often quoted the prophets -- Isaiah for stressing the need to beat swords into ploughshares and Joel for emphasizing the need to beat ploughshares into swords. Conditions, he said, determined which policy to use.

That sounds about right to most of us. George Bush, like Harry Truman, should be judged on his policies and not on what inspired them. The devil, after all, is in the details.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Suzanne Fields' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
One loooooooong paragraph?
Like I'm going to read that.

Best line...
..."In God We Trust" is "on the money."

Column
It might just be my computer, but this whole column is one paragraph. It's pretty hard to read.

Boy that's a sentence with resonance...
"[Evangelical Christians are] troglodyte know-nothings unified in a cabal to promote ignorance."

Good Article
Worth reading despite the formatting problems.

It is arrogance...
... and it is everywhere. Western culture has become so besotted with itself that it thinks it can abandon the very underpinnings of what has made it what it is. Not just religious belief (and, particularly, Judeo-Christian religious belief), but standards of education, knowledge of history, limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility (and RESTRAINT, which MUST go hand in hand with liberty).

As a result, an increasing percentage of our population has no concept of morals, no understanding of our history, and no fear of oppressive government. But plenty of fear of people with a Judeo-Christian belief system. (Except, of course, then that belief system is commandeered to argue for lower emission standards, vegan diets or higher taxation.)

It is appalling to be as ignorant as Westerners are becoming. But appalling and dangerous to be both ignorant AND arrogant.

Evangelical Agreement
"deep-water baptism"

I wouldn't be so sure about that one either. I agree that baptism means immersion, but if it's a symbol of a spiritual immersion, then perhaps the quantity of water is not so important. But maybe it is.

However, if deep water baptism is so important, I might suggest getting rid of grape-juice communions and breaking out the wine, for the sake of consistency. And getting rid of congregational leadership as well and replacing it with elder rule.

I would only practice deep-water baptism, but I would probably recognize sprinkles as well.

Hill
"and RESTRAINT, which MUST go hand in hand with liberty"

I agree. Liberty displaces law, and the vacuum created thereby must be filled with honor or society collapses.

Sorry
I should have said Hollis, not Hill.

Mainer
"Worth reading despite the formatting problems."

I didn't even notice them until you pointed them out. That's how blinded I am by Coulterphilia.

LOL
This isn't Coulter... but apparently the blinded comment still stands.

Because Christians and Jews show control
Have you ever been in a grocery store and seen a screaming, kicking toddler slap her mother and yell "Poo poo head!" at her? Why do you think she does that? Because she can.

That's the meain reason why the culture at large mocks and sneers at Christians and Jews alike -- because they can.

Other reasons: because they know in their hearts that what they are doing is wrong -- their lives are irregular, to say the least, or they're initiating theft, infidelity or fraud in their offices, or they're promoting unrest and discouragement among their constituents...and because they know these things are uncharitable and against the laws of God, they project the judgment of their consciences upon the Christians who don't behave the way they behave and trivialize them in an effort to ease that voice in their heads.

And finally because the lives of the Christians and observant Jews actually work; their children are respectful, their schools quiet and orderly, and the children scoring well on all tests (the sixth grade at the local Hebrew day school passed with an 85% average grade the exit examination for the local public schools, for one example), and their families stay together despite a lot of encouragement by society to be different. The painful spotlight shone on the Amish recently is an example of what those whose only mantra is "if it feels good, do it" cannot stand the idea that when someone is The Boss Of Them, things work. So they desperately seek another way to discredit these people -- when their real fear is that somebody's going to take charge and make them cut their hair, take a bath, put on clean clothes, pack a lunch and go to work. That is, GROW UP.

A lifetime of screaming "You're not the boss of me!" is a hard habit to break. Much easier to try to tear down those people whose lives don't work like that -- but do work. But one thing's wrong with that scenario; they can't silence that voice because it is inside their own heads.

come on!!
if you vote republican this election cycle, you are voting for ignorance. bremmer and tenant get medals, rumfeld keeps his job, stay the course,....

Baptism . . .
is symbolic, not literal; depth of the water is irrelevant.

To the leftists/socialists it doesn't matter the denomination, only that the "evangelicals" are taking over the country and will force everyone to believe in God.

The villification of Christians is a real tactic of the socialists. The socialists truly feel that Christians, as a group, are a viable and effective political force. Whether or not they actually are that powerful remains to be seen.

Socialists do not like religious groups (see also the hatred for the Jews), but couch it in vague terms such as "separation of church and state"...not for religious ends but for political gain.

If the Socialist-Democrats get control of the White House in '08, look for the IRS to come down hard on organized Christians and Jews.

Selmo
Who is "tenant", and if you mean a certain CIA guy, who first appointed him?

I'd rather vote for ignorance than stay at home for communism.

Being true to oneself
When a people lose its fear, awe, respect, and reverence for God, morals and behavior deteriorate. This is what has happened in the moral and spiritual regression of America. We no longer have a strong, pervasive reverence in this nation for the things that pertain to God.

It is not "Politically Correct" to mention God,
unless of course, you are cursing.


WELL MS. FIELDS
As already mentioned, that was a heck of a paragraph. But your mothers wishes of having her grandchildren exposed to religion is right on target. Not to say that a religious background alone is what makes for a healthy well rounded adult, but introducing religion to children at a young age definitely gives a child a path of morals that can be followed throughout their lives. Not only is it the teachings of your religion of choice, but it also provides more time together as a family when attending service, and families who attend services together usually spend additional time together during meals and other family activities which in return gives a child a sense of security. So it's not just the teachings of the religion, it becomes more of a chosen lifestyle that promotes a health family, and as a result usually producing a well adjusted adult who then in return provides the same warm family environment for their own family. There was a time not to long ago when these family values were strong in America and children showed respect to their teachers and other authoritarian figures in their lives, but then the liberals came along with the support of the ACLU and decided that moral and religion were no longer needed in our society and proceeded to destroy the value system that this country was built on. And that my friend is reason alone for not voting for any liberal Democrat, and why the ACLU should be dismantled and all their card carrying members should be shipped to Mexico with a one way ticket.

Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org annd post your views, thoughts and opinions.
Heads Need To Roll

Liberals = Adolescents
AudiR10:

Outstanding post above. That is a good summation of the absolute truth about the shrinking of the left from the cross, much like a vampire would.

It has become more and more clear that liberals and democrats (same thing, regardless of what they may tell you) are stuck in a permanent state of adolescence, and this goes deeper than the fact that many of them can't seem to enter the real grown-up world and choose to remain at universities.

Examples:

1. Focus is on me, me, me. My wants, my desires, my body, my career.

2. The hormones have never matured: All they think about is sex -- just look at the TV shows, movies, magazines. Nothing wrong about thinking about sex, but there is a distinct level of immaturity about their presentation of it.

3. Peer pressure and groupthink -- See University faculty and the lack of intellectual diversity.

4. Refusal to take the blame -- mainly because of poor self-esteem. It's always someone else's fault (society, my mother, my troubled childhood, not enough money, etc.,etc.,etc.)

5. Name-calling (Bush is Hitler -- enough said).

6. Pathological self-consciousness - Always obsessing what others think about you. "Why don't they like us? Why do they hate us?"

7. Simplistic bumper sticker slogan thinking, i.e. "War is not the answer", "Bush lied, people died", and on and on.

8. Finally, in the end, wanting all the goodies, and feeling entitled to them, but someone else should pay for them -- either Mommy and Daddy (or Mommy and Mommy), or you and me, the taxpayer.

There are many more, I'm sure. Feel free to add.

What they say vs. what they mean:
As DavidMac points out the leftists like to run around screaming that the Christians are taking over the country and will force everyone to believe in God. The ones saying that aren't stupid enough to actually believe it, although there are an unfortunate amount of folks that are and do.

What the leftists really mean is that the belief in God of Christians, and apparently the Evangelicals in particular, are keeping them ruling the country and therefore no one must be allowed to believe in God.



keeping them FROM ruling the country
typo!

Oops, one more....
With a little help from hntr admin:

9. Lack of respect for authority: Traditional vocations which once commanded respect are now trashed on a routine basis. Examples include police officers, the clergy, the military, and yes, doctors. Remember: Traditional authority figures must be torn down, because "They are no better than I am! or You can't tell me what to do!"

Okay, enough from me.

Even agnostics and atheists...
should appreciate the role that religion has played throughout history in keeping us from self-consuming chaos. Without fear of God (or gods), what society could have survived chaos? What would have kept our darker human tendencies in check long enough for us to postulate the benefits of law and order, community, and serving each other? I seriously doubt the human race could have evolved to current levels simply through the forces of instinct and self-preservation.

OK, now I wait for some anti-religious nut job to swoop in and tell me all about all the evil done in religion's name. Humans can corrupt anything. Religion doesn't kill people, sheeple kill people.

wall separating church and state?
I don't find any such "wall" mentioned in the Constitution, and if the concept of a "wall" was bandied about among the Founders, I have not discovered it in my own reading.

Could someone please point me towards the historical references, pre-Constitution, to "separation" of church and state?

"...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." does not wall-off government from the church. It DOES, IMHO, imply that giving tax-exempt status to churches is inappropriate, given the first of these two clauses. And that's hardly erecting a legal wall: it's encouraging organized religion.


TROGLODYTES?! SAY THAT FIVE TIMES ...
So, we Christians and Jews in American political thought are likened to "antropoid apes,... or cave men, or hermits... or anyone of primitive habits?" (Standard College Dictionary)

Hey Brothers and Sisters,all such name calling, and ill will toward we Believers should not come as any surprise. Jesus said the world "hated" Him, and those of us who choose to follow Him will be due the same treatment. And, to cull out those CINO's (Christians in name only) He set the bar of discipleship radically high, ie. "Take up YOUR cross, and follow me." This should give some pause to what it means to really be "hangin' out" with God.

EXCELLENT COMMENTS BEV. But most won't have a clue about what you say, and could care less what you believe.

And, whether Miss Fields' column comes off as Greek to many, [or just one long paragraph], when you mention Christianity and government in the same sentence today, watch out!

"... the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishess,but to us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor.1:18

Why do the heathen [in America] rage, and the [Liberal] people imagine a vain thing? For example that brash misapplied "WALL OF SEPARATION", that purports to demand our Creator keep His hands off the Body Politic.

Who does He think He is, God?!






jerubaal
I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils than stay at home for pure evil - communism.

baptism
Is a public pronouncement of your faith. It is an important distinction between something you decided in private and truly making a stand for your faith.

That said, most Christian denominations differ only on the details and agree on what really matters: Salvation through Christ.

If it is unimportant, why did the Son of God walk many miles to do it himself?

Great article, Ms. Fields
Glad the paragraph problem was fixed; otherwise I probably wouldn't have bothered. That was a very good piece.

"What astonishes me is that people of faith rarely sneer at nonbelievers, but scientifically oriented cosmopolites rarely hesitate to mock believers."

From my own experience, I find that to be true. The most overtly anti-Christian/liberal people I know (as opposed to ones that are merely apathetic) are very intolerant and rude towards evangelical Christians, yet the Christians I've known are respectful towards people with whom they disagree (whether they're liberal, non-Christian, gay, etc.) It is somewhat telling of which side is truly committed to a peaceful world.

Read
The Theme is Freedom by M. Stanton Evans. Exellent essays on the historical basis of our constitution and the way our history is being "mistaught".


Great column. Suzanne.

The Left hates Christianity
Great column, followed by some brilliant comments.

Someone did write, however, that evangelical Christians are more persecuted than Catholics. As a Catholic I might be able to argue with that, but I'm not sure it's a competition here. The Left is committed to wiping out *all* forms of Christianity, and we all need to be "hanging together lest we hang separately," as Mr. Franklin put it.
Interesting, too, that the Left is very specific in its hatred for Christianity. It seems to have endless toleration and even love for the "Religion of Peace." Blech.

12 Paragraphs
What browser are you one-paragraphers using? Or was this a formatting error on Townhall.com's side earlier? There are 12. For those of us who were, in the words of Ms. Fields' mother, "given a little religion," even that means something.

BTW, if "Evangelical Christians [really]... are troglodyte know-nothings unified in a cabal to promote ignorance," we wouldn't understand that we have been impugned. But Ms. Fields is correct in her statement that we have indeed been so scapegoated. Strategy translation: If "they" don't agree with you, call "them" stupid. I seem to remember this strategy used by bullies on the playground of my elementary school many years ago. How creative is that?

Wall of separation
This was actually a phrase Jefferson used in private correspondence. I don't know how it got into public parlance and virtually into law.

Fantastic article
I couldn't agree more. I was listening to the radio this morning and a Barna group study showed that, amongst those who do NOT consider themselves "christians", evangelical christians came in 10th out of 11 societal groups. We came in right before prostitutes. So we are well respected amongst our peers.

I believe one of the reasons for that is, as some others have said, they equate the Savior with the people. Also, approximately 60% of Americans consider themselves Christian (USA Today poll). Therefore everyone knows someone who is a "christian" who is cheating on his/her spouse, cheating on taxes, etc., and then makes the blanket statement "see, they are no better than I am; worse even as I don't claim to be a "christian".

I find the fault with this lies completely with the Church. When the Church stopped speaking the truth and acting as a voice of moral authority, all authority the Church had disappeared. We as believers have no one to blame but ourselves.

The thing that hurts me most as a father, though, is the thought of my daughter and son. To them Jesus and God are as real as the bed in which they sleep at night. I say prayers with my children every night and my daughter will talk to Jesus like he is in the room with her, asking Him to help out a sick classmate, her teacher, etc. This past Sunday she was baptised at our church. While that was a tremendous day for my wife and I, it breaks my heart in a way that she is living in a society which will mock her for her views and do everything it can to destroy her faith, which in the long run is all she, and we, have.


Rons fallacies
"There are people who want to force my daughters and grand-daughters into pregnancies to full term against their will,"

I take it you skipped biology in school? Inconvenience is no excuse for murder. Muggers use it all the time.

"to prevent my gay friends from marrying"

Who is changing the definition of marriage, here? You know the one that existed long before government and your gay friends?

"to force my to pledge alliegance to a god I don't believe in"

If you speaking 'one nation, under God' is the extent of American 'tyranny' we are in pretty good shape.

"and to prevent the teachers of my grand-children from teaching evolution. "

A bald faced lie! It is not the evolution view which is being silence, no sir it is the alternative view.

Twodog:
Take heart my friend, you are not alone.

Ronsch
If your daughters and grand-daughters do not wish to be forced into pregnancies to full term against their will perhaps they should have made the choice to abstain from sex. One does not have to be religious in order to reason that sex most probably will lead to pregnancy. That is scientific fact that you conveniently ignore so you can justify your anti-religious crusade. It also perfectly points out the comment above about taking responsibility.

What makes you think you know my views on evolution? Or anything else? Please. You're not that intelligent but you are extremely arrogant. Did you really think that I would feel any pity for you?

You've managed to prove claims made by other posters. You take no responsibility, you are pathologically self-consciousness, and arrogant.

Ronsch
How about the other side. You are a part of society and must accept their norms. Why should people be exposed to the concept of blind chance determining our development just because you agree with it? As for being forced to carry a baby full term, maybe they shouldn't have sex if they don't want to be forced to deal with the consequences? And if the majority of the people want the Pledge to include God, why should your minority view prevail? As for your reference to Jewish people, they are the minority in this country too. Maybe you should try living in Israel and see if you agree with all the stipulations and laws there [I doubt you will]. Your whiney plea to be left alone can be accomodated however- just leave the country. When you choose to live here, you must abide by the laws, and the Fundamental Christians have every right to try and make their view prevail. If they convince the majority, then so be it.

Who are the Bigots
I agree with so very much of what you are saying. To many of the posters I would like to say, why are only the
"left" bigots?

"liberals came along ... and decided that moral and religion were no longer needed in our society and proceeded to destroy the value system"

"The Left hates Christianity"

(if you want more examples, visit the postings on any
of the other columnists with the possible exception of
the mortgage guy).

There will also be plenty more statements like this before the column has run its course also.

Ann Coulter says without a blush on her face that Liberals are Godless. Not some. Not making any differentiation among any of us. One can wonder why anyone would believe in God if she is an adequate representative of a Christian.

I find it equally awful when liberals speak of Christians
that way. After all, most of my extended family are
fundamentalists and I happen to be very fond of them and
believe them to be great people. Even though I left that brand of religion I did not leave religion. It is an integral part of my life.

What I also don't like is that the religious right wants
to dumb down our education system because they haven't
yet accepted that God and Science are not at odds.
The fact that God did not speak to the Hebrews in
scientific terms back before the wheel had yet been
invented should be no surprise. Ask any Hebrew today if he/she still believes the earth was created 6 thousands years ago. God spoke in Mythical terms when it was
needed for answering questions that could not yet be
answered with "facts." That does not mean that he is
not the Creator in either belief system, nor does it
mean that we should not be about the business of learning
the facts. To learn about Science is to learn about God.

It is only when the fundamentalists want to make this
place a theocracy that my hair starts standing on end.
Otherwise if they believe what they believe because it
is necessary for them is a matter of indifference to
me.

Susan, I wish that when you had written this column you
would have addressed posters on this website also. On
Stephen Colbert's ColbertNation website, he has a code
of ethics, which happens to be adhered to by posters.
This is a very short part of it.

Be respectful. The Colbert Nation community and its members treat one another with respect.

That is just two sentences out of several paragraphs,
but it sums it up pretty well. When defending religion
it would have been particularly appropriate, I think.

Maybe next time.


The Secular Advantages Of A Good Faith
Ever notice that when once-religious people become atheists they also become bitter snobs who want to denigrate religion, and when once-atheists become non-athiests they seem to become happy people that want to share what made them happy?

Now consider that happening on a global scale. You'll either get a world full of bitter atheists who don't have anyone to be snobs toward, or a world full of happy non-athesits who are no longer denigrated by atheist snobs.

Non-atheism (as I like to call it, since I believe atheism is a religion of sorts) is built on a framework of tradition and beliefs that inspire hope, forgiveness, love, and faith. And it's a fact that having those feelings make people happier.

An atheists system of beliefs doesn't have an equivalent foundation for inspiring those feelings to such a great degree. I mean, what's there to emulate ... a bag of chemicals that spontaneously reacted to form a non-value thing called life? How depressing.

I'm a results guy. I don't care much about processes, but rather the end product. If I was in charge of society I would perscribe a social medicine that brings about the greatest happiness for each person. That means that I'd promote faith inspiring religions.

I believe that man exists in order to experience joy and that belief stems from my non-atheist views. In contrast, if you believe like Bill Bryson that "the purpose of life is to perpetuate DNA" ('History of Nearly Everything') then what's the point of going on? From a social standpoint, that's pretty frightening.

In short, clearly religions that inspire hope, forgiveness, love, and faith should be nurtured even by those who don't perscribe to the beliefs. Regardless, they can be assured of my forgiveness for thier repudiation of my beliefs, because that's what my religion promotes: forgiveness.

Ronsch
How typical is it that Fundies respond to accusations of intolerance...with intolerance!?

"...troglodyte know-nothings unified in a cabal to promote ignorance..."
I wish I could put it better myself.

You are right to demand that your offspring are taught the fact of evolution and the theories of how it happened. You are right to ask to be left out of the dogmatic medieval ignorance preached by this cabal of troglodytes.

Non-believers appreciate the staggering wonder of the universe better though because they don't have pat, ready-made answers to life and their place in the universe like the god-deluded do. Atheists really have to think, and can usually do so much more effectively, in my experience.

Every group of people has those who can't behave as others would like, or commit crime or do stupid things and expect others to help them out of the mess. The proportions of such people are exactly the same in the Fundy congregations as they are in the world of non-believers, except a couple of years ago a study showed (sorry no reference to it just at the moment) that the rates of teen pregnancy and some other ills deemed sinful by the glorious are actually higher in the bible-belt states, positively correlated with "religiosity".

Freedom of religion and FREEDOM FROM IT is the most important founding principle.

falsehoods re:evolution
The debate over evolution is:

1. What views are allowed to be presented. Currently the darwinists have enforced 'their view only' in public schools. Schools which all taxpayers are forced to pay for.

2. Changes over time evolution is perfectly acceptable to any Christian I have ever met. Its the origin of LIFE which is often applied to darwin's theories.

Darwin himself said in his book that evolution could not explain origins of life itself. This is akin to : rain falls from the sky so that is where water comes from.

Nature still tends towards chaos, not order.

I think it will be impossible to scientifically ascertain where life began. The most you could ever present are theories. To coin a phrase 'you had to be there'.

"Freedom of religion and FREEDOM FROM IT is the most important founding principle."

Thank goodness other people can read the First Amendment.

Stu here has decided he knows all.

Since he has set himself up as arbiter of what can be learned and not, perhaps we should ask where Stu gets his knowledge?
Maybe he is too blind to see that his 'faith' is simply in different men than the ones who taught me about mine.

I doubt it, he is happy in his blissful bigotry.

Stu's Sucker Punch
That post is so foolish it doesn't deserve comment, other than to note that it is typical that he chooses to attack Christians, since he doesn't have to worry about them hitting back (or cutting off his head, or strapping a bomb on himself and blowing up innocents, etc.).

Stu's trolling is cowardly at best, and doesn't deserve a response, although I took the bait, unfortunately. Hopefully the rest of you won't.

Good piece, except...
I take issue with Ms. Fields's comments that "Evangelical Christians are attacked with the derision critics would never apply to Catholics..."

The Catholic Church takes a beating from Press, Politicians, and Hollywood as being just like evangelicals (in the mind of the Left), except that our clergy is nothing but a bunch of pedophiles or their enablers. The criticism of the Church is at its strongest in the entertainment industry where many movies and TV shows have portrayed us in a bad light. I give you "Dogma", "Priest", and "Nothing Sacred" as examples.

DavidM
If "you had to be there" was even relevant, there would be no such thing as forensic science. Would you actually be able to describe accurately evolution by natural selection to me, or are you one of the ignorant cabal?

Stu
Go back and read what I posted.

ORIGIN cannot be determined from residual evidence. Nor can it be determined by natural selection, whilst other things can.

Unless you are arguing origins, you are tilting at windmills.

This is like seeing a knife mark at a crime scene and attempting to determine where the knife came from and who made it.

Since you asked me a question, explain to me how genetic sequences jump from say 96 pairs to 46 pairs?

Adding or removing pairs almost invariably either kills the cells or makes the resulting creature sterile...

Some more food for thought:
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/crutches.html

UNC Doc and Stu
UNCDoc, with great apologies to you I am going to respond. Although I'm not sure what a "fundie" is I'm sure Stu here is talking about me and my family.

I'd love to compare IQ, education, paychecks, careers, etc. with you Stu. I'm certain that I'd fare pretty decently, just based on your post, but I won't. I'll just respond with questions and demands for proof:

"You are right to demand that your offspring are taught the fact of evolution and the theories of how it happened."
1. Demonstrate the "fact" of evolution to me. Let's talk REAL facts, not hypotheses. Let's not talk about permutations amongst subspecies. Give me a PROVEN FACT that evolution on a planetary scale has occured.
2. Explain to me with FACTS "how" evolution occured (what started it all). Again, we are not talking about hypotheses here. Just scientifically PROVEN facts.

"Atheists really have to think..."
1. Why do atheists really have to think? Is it because they look at a universe that came into existence somehow, and in some way completely beyond the ability for humankind to grasp, and then say "not by God, as He doesn't exist."?

Define atheism, then demonstrate the proof that God doesn't exist. Facts only, not opinions.

"Atheists really have to think, and can usually do so much more effectively, in my experience."

1. What is your test group which allowed you to make such global assumptions?
2. What is your definition of "more effectively"? Is it a definition that matches your beliefs or is it merely a persuasive ability to elucidate one's ideas?

"Non-believers appreciate the staggering wonder of the universe better though.."
1. Explain how a "non-believer" appreciates the staggering wonder of the universe better than a "fundy".
2. How does the "fundy" explain the staggering wonder of the universe and how it pertains to him/her?

"The proportions of such people are exactly the same in the Fundy congregations as they are in the world of non-believers, except a couple of years ago a study showed (sorry no reference to it just at the moment) that the rates of teen pregnancy and some other ills deemed sinful by the glorious are actually higher in the bible-belt states, positively correlated with "religiosity"."

Sorry on that one, you won't let "fundy's" get away without concrete facts, so I won't either. Please give citation to the above-mentioned study, or at the least, provide the parameters of the study (that "scientific" stuff that makes an experiment credible).

Last one and it's a bonus:

Define faith.

I look forward to your honest thoughtful answers.

Evil-ution
I've got a good cartoon pinned up on my office door (yeah, I'm one of those...)

"Once upon a time, there was a complete void in space. Not even a speck of dirt existed! [You have to mentally picture the cartoon blocks]

"But, in time, MATTER evolved from nothing.

"Then, after millions of years, this matter evolved into different metals.

"And, again, in time, this material evolved into gears, sprockets, springs, hands and stems.

"And then all these parts put themselves together and made the first SWISS WATCH!

"And, by the way, it wound itself up, and runs perfectly to this day!

"If this sounds far-fetched to you, then you ought to hear the one abou the THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!"

Yeah, right. Sorry - it'd take more faith than I can dredge up to believe in that inane theory called evolution.

Someday, all you atheists and "scientists" are going to stand in front of Him and say "...Oops."

quilting
I like how my friend put it. She said, "I can take thread, needle, and fabric and throw them up into the air however many times I want, but it will never make itself into a quilt."

Twodog
Great posts! You seem to have spent as much time studying this topic as have I. You won't get honest answers from Stu (or Ronsch), because atheists refuse to acknowledge that their ideas are shaped by their "beliefs". All they can do is go about comparing their vaunted "science" against my ignorant "faith", and it really is growing old. This is the same round-and-around that never seems to end.

AudiR10 is on the money, too. The reason liberals so fear people of faith is because, IMHO, we tend to help focus their conscience at times. Assuming, of course, that they have any remaining.


A great start twodog...
But my favorite part of the "...appreciate better..." quote was the tail - "because they don't have pat, ready-made answers to life and their place in the universe like the god-deluded do." Ever notice how the people WITHOUT answers are revered by the heathen? According to Stu, they're actually smarter BECAUSE they have fewer answers. Hey Stu - try choosing your professors, doctors, lawyers or accountants with that logic. You already see how well it's working with your politicians...






Lisa
"Ann Coulter says without a blush on her face that Liberals are Godless. Not some. Not making any differentiation among any of us. One can wonder why anyone would believe in God if she is an adequate representative of a Christian."

Did you ever stop and think that if she were some NPR monotone, you would have never heard of her? Her ideas would never get out in this "shock" society we live in today. Additionally, how is her approach any different than that of Howard Dean, Al Franken, or any others on the liberal side? Answer, none. You just like their position so they are not bad people.

You might also stop and look at the positions that liberals take (pro-abortion, though to make it less painful we call it pro-choice, pro gay-marriage, pro-homosexual lifestyles, we call it "alternative lifestyles", etc.) which are polar opposites of what the Bible says God stands for. Maybe that's where she gets that idea from.

Stu the Constitutional Scholar?
Stu wrote, "Freedom of religion and FREEDOM FROM IT is the most important founding principle."

Stu, could you please direct me to where in the Constitution a right of "freedom from religion" exists? Is it in the same place that the "wall of seperation of church and state" is located?

Actually Jander...it is...
Right in the exact same place. Look there. :)

Keep the Church out of our Government!
Sadly, the latest public debates about mixing politics with religion (particularly as it relates to abortion, sex and legalizing Gay marriage) have been commanded by a well-organized (albeit unlikely) combination of both traditional and fundamentalist evangelical “Christian” institutions. The latter, as a group, remain particularly non-inclusive in their approach to religion.

The hypocrisy of such “Christian” behavior (purported to be founded on principles of love, inclusiveness and acceptance, but which are now increasingly being shown as narrow intolerance for the beliefs and private sexual behavior of others) is now blatantly on display for the entire world to see.

For example, it's becoming ever harder for even mainstream Christians to blindly accept lectures on what is “abnormal” sexual behavior from an institution that, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, still firmly considers celibacy for its priests to be “normal”. This is the same institution that has been spending millions in legal fees trying to protect both itself as well as its large cadre of pedophile Priests.

I think it’s also critically important for all of us to remember that, when they set up our country and wrote our Constitution, the Founding Fathers were very careful to include a clear separation between Church and State. Maybe that's because a large number of them (like Thomas Jefferson) were Deists who also knew full well how freedoms quickly evaporate once organized religion (of any genre) mixes with government. And, they were bound and determined NOT to let their new country become a Theocracy.

Anyone who truly believes in the full separation of Church and State should now recognize the current attempts by the right-wing fundamentalist Christians to hijack and control our government for what they are...little more than desperate, last-ditch attempts to salvage what’s left of organized religion's once complete power to control people’s money, thoughts and lives.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush (along with the far-right-wing fundamentalist theocrats now in the US Congress) are desperately trying to preserve, protect and then codify those precepts into US law. They are bound and determined to ram their far right, “good vs. evil”, fundamentalist religious views down all our throats “by law” whether we (or what's written in our Constitution) happens to agree with them or not.

Now, certainly, what people do in the privacy of their churches or synagogues or mosques (or whatever) is entirely up to them. Our Constitution guarantees all of us the right of peaceful assembly, regardless of the reason, as well as our right to worship in any way that we please..including not worshipping at all.

But that same Constitution also draws a clear line that forbids our government from establishing a "state religion". Unfortunatley, this is precisely what I believe Mr. Bush and his theocrats are now trying to do…if not by name…then certainly by consequence.

I believe it is critically important for each of us…of ALL religions "stripes"…to remember that our precious freedoms can be just as easily taken from us by over-zealous, fundamentalist theocrats pushing “moral values” legislation than by the work of any rag-tag bunch of terrorists.

Hopefully, enough of us will see through this gigantic fundamentalist "power grab" and act accordingly come Election Day.

Establishment/Seperation
...shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Congress has never passed any law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of any religion.

In the context of the language the word "respecting" is horribly misused by people that want the abolition of religion in the public square.

Although there is no wall specifically stated in the Constition, one was erected...To protect the church from the state.

religion in politics
This cry of "religion is being attacked" is simply an emotionally charged, immature lie made up by conservative christians who clearly hate anyone who doesn't have the same religious beliefs they have. I honestly don't see any difference between middle-east cries against the USA of "infadels" and republicans in this country screaming at democrats because they aren't "religious" enough. Why don't you get honest? It's not religious freedom you're after. It's the ability to judge and control and attempt to change anybody who doesn't follow the exact same moral path as you...and if the truth were known, as has been shown so many times by the current house and senate, that path doesn't seem very moral to me. It takes bigger people than christians to demonstrate morality and it sure takes bigger people than most of the republicans I've seen and heard in this country. All you people do is reject anyone and everyone who isn't you.

Keep your religious opinions out of Washington and into church, where they belong - not shoved down everyone else's throat in this country!!!!!


bah
i dont like religion never really have and probably never will. Religion is a creation of MAN nothing more nothing less. All religions are used to influence people in some way shape or form this can be good or bad.This does not mean God does not exists as there is no scientific way to prove He does exist and it is impossible to prove a negative. However, i feel that sometimes it can get in the way of God's will. I try to be spiritaul and deal with God on my own in my own way.

I agree with Keith that the founding fathers did have some kinda seperation of church and state to avoid a theocrocy however they also wanted some religious invovlement as most of the people in america were religious. I also agree that there is a crazy branch of the far right trying to create a christian theocrocy in this country just as i feel there is a crazy branch of the far left tring to eliminate all signs of christianity from this country after which they will move on to the next big religious bloc. i will fight both because both will doom this country as the haven of freedom it has become.

I also dont think that just because a person is an atheist they became immoral. Why do all christains beleve that if they had no god they would suddenly start to do all sorts of horrible acts. Are your morals really that weak? I have several friends who are not christian, i think at least one may be pagan not sure have not talked with her in a while. They are some of the nicest people you will ever meet. I always seek what i have in common with people rather than what is different because difference are easy to find out and focusing on them isolates you from some really cool people.

thanks and have a wonderful day

homer
I guess you're saying it doesn't exist then, because there is no express wall of separation in the constitution.

chr
Since you're so concerned about proof, why don't you offer us some evidence that the far right wants a theocracy? Otherwise I'll presume your unsupported assertion is withdrawn.

Keith
Christians have never accepted immoral sexuality; there is no hypocrisy.

If you cannot see that we believe that sex is most enjoyed in the context of marriage, and that we therefore promote it out of love, then you cannot be helped.

You have different beliefs; if you can promote yours through the political process, then so can I.

chr
"I agree with Keith that the founding fathers did have some kinda seperation of church and state"

No they didn't. Most state had churches after the Constitution was ratified.

Now, if you mean to say that the founders didn't want a theocracy, you are correct. The founders wanted a representative republic. If you do not understand the two are contradictions, then you cannot be helped. A theocracy is rule by the clergy; that is completely inconsistent with rule by elected representatives.

If everyone in the U.S.A. were a Christian and the national religion were Christianity, we still would not have a theocracy unless the Senate and House and Presidency and Judiciary were removed and the clergy replaced them.

Lisa
"This cry of "religion is being attacked" is simply an emotionally charged, immature lie made up by conservative christians who clearly hate anyone who doesn't have the same religious beliefs they have."

I love the magical word "clearly". Merely writing it conjures up all the proof for your assertions from the ether that you would ever need.

Unfortunately, the critical mind that falls for this exists only in the ether.

I'm hitting on myself on the head now.
I forgot that Lisa is a Looney Liberal Leftist who does not speak the same English that the rest of us do.

In LLL English, to hate means to disgree with the Krazy Kos Kidz.

jerbuaal
umm i was saying the founding fathers where perventing a theology. Which can stil happen even in a republic if the nuts stage a revolt.

You seem to imply that i am saying all christians want a theocracy in ameraica i am not merely the super extreme ones. i have no proof that i can point to right now. Of course by the same token i dont have any proof of the super extreme left wanting to destroy all religon (not just chirstianity) so i guess i have to take that back too.

Keith you are so off-base
Could you please show me where in the Bible it teaches about "inclusiveness and acceptance"? I hear this all the time from liberals who obviously have never read the Bible. Our Lord Jesus said that he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matthew 10: 34-35: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw"

Although the Bible does teach about acceptence, but not the moral relativity acceptance that you preach! We are required to accept Jesus as our Savior. We are required to accept that we are sinner and require the blood of Jesus to wash us clean of our sins.

Your contention that Prez Bush and religious conservatives are trying to create a theocracy because their political views are influenced by their religious views is absurd. Nobody is trying to enforce Old Testament laws. There are many people who aren't religious and still believe that abortion is murder and "gay marriage" is wrong.

What you fail to understand is that when you claim that certain things are ok or moral, you are making a moral judgement and pushing your morality on everybody else, albeit a godless morality. You are doing the same thing that you claim "fundies" are doing - pushing your beliefs on other people.

Jerubaal on baptism, wine, and elders

Welcome to my idea of church. It is not the building; it is the people following Jesus.

I too believe in deep water, full immersion baptism. Jesus set the example for us to follow.

I take red wine (not grape juice) with His supper. Again, He said, “Do this in remembrance of me.

And I oppose the concept of priests and ministers as office holders. Ministry is a mission not an office to hold and protect.

Everything that Jesus told the church to do, He told to the people – not to the officeholders.

chr335
I think the super extreme left would include communists who do have as part of their platform the elimination of religion. I can refer you to Richard Dawkins who thinks religion is basically a mental disorder that society should eradicate.

to Birdman - I love your ideas man. Well said.

ON NOTICE TO EVERYONE
I want to state categorically that I did not write the
post of Oct 26 at 5:52 p.m. in spite of the fact that
it says "Lisa writes." I did write the one at 1:45 p.m.

If I were a betting person, I would lay my money on
its being written by someone from the Town Hall organiza-
tion itself.

1) I have never seen two people with the same moniker. I
would think that for reasons, such as this, it would
not be allowed.

2) On two occasions I have contacted the Town Hall
organization suggesting that they should do something
about cleaning up the ranting on this website. The most
recent one was just a day or two ago and I used the
ColbertNation quote, plus a longer one, that I used in
my 1:45 posting. In other words, Stephen Colbert's
people expect those who are posting to respect the other
posters. And guess what, they do!

3) I also complained, on a post under another column,
that the website was driving me nuts because it once
again duplicating what I had written. I see this happen
with a fair number of people.

4) Again, if I were a betting person, my money goes to
someone in the front office. They are not too happy
with me, and the post is something that is almost
exactly opposite of what I would have written.

P.S. In two days I leave for Kenya for a 2 week+
vacation. If there are any more posts from "Lisa"
during that time, the imposter has struck again.

Real Lisa
Thanks for letting us know, and have fun in Kenya, will ya?

There might be an unprintable character in Fake Lisa's name that doesn't show up. For example, it may have a leading or trailing space that gets ignored somewhere down the line, but after authentication.

to TWODOG
I believe that if you would revist my 1:45 post you would
find that immediately after my mention of Ann Coulter, I
said that I find liberals who spout this sort of stuff
equally reprehensible. Did you decide not the read the
the rest of the post or do you just have an extremely
short memory.

I am no fan of Al Franken or George Maher. I think all
three of them, along with Limbaugh and Hannity have
played a large part in creating the shock culture. And I
for one am thoroughly sick of it.

Separation of Church and State
As I recall it, from my American History courses, Mr. Jefferson deeply resented having to go to church on Sundays, as required by the Virginia colonial laws. Specially because the Church was the established Anglican Church. So he would attend a Baptist Church, instead. That was an act of rebellion on his part. When came to the Constitution, he insisted on entering a phrase into the First Amendment, which, among other things, forbade the US Government to create an official church, and went as far as to influence the State of Virginia not to sanction the Constitution, if it did not include his views on creating a national church. There is nothing in the Constituion about "a wall between Church and State". There is a great deal of reading into what Mr. Jefferson said, which actually distorts his words, for the benefit of those who would do away completely with religion, if they could. I think people should go back and read the Constitution again, if they ever read it, and stop repeating idiotic words of other people, who probably never really read it.

Biblical acceptance
The Bible does preach inclusion. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." We're all sinners and at odds with what God wants us to be because we have disobeyed Him. Christians have accepted that, allowed Jesus to forgive us and are attempting to reform our lives to follow the pattern Christ set. Because we're human we're not so good at that, so some times nonbelievers see us acting human and think that should be a reflection on God. God is not a human, just to state the obvious. So, if you want to cite Biblical inclusion, I guess you're going to have to accept that you're a sinner, just as this Christian has.

As for acceptance, the Bible teaches that as well. Rahab was accepted into the line of David AFTER she stopped being a prostitute. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more." He said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me." Saul of Tarsus (later to become the Apostle Paul) was accepted into Christian fellowship after he'd proven that he'd stopped persecuting Christians. Jesus said "If a man denies me on this earth, I will deny him in heaven."

Jesus doesn't accept the "good" people or the people who think they're good. He accepts the people who have obeyed Him. Only those who have repented (turned from their disobedience) are accepted by Jesus as "approved." Not good, not perfect, not socially-acceptable -- but approved.

I would suggest that before someone passes judgmen on what you think the Bible teaches, you actually read it. If you want a starting place, follow my link to my blog or check out Reformation Man's blog. Or hey, just open the Bible to Matthew 1:1 and start reading. You can get to the Old Testament next year.

Stop passing judgment on what you do not know!

Oh my stomach.....
The more comments I read, as most of you ranted on seemingly forever, And then finally................ Birdman shouted some truth and light! Oh, how hard I try to "turn the other cheek" when being persecuted as a Christian, but I gotta tell you -I ain't perfect - so I call it "Godly anger". And it's okay... But most of all, I feel sympathy for you Pharoahs who are so blinded to the truth. Because of your unbelief, God has placed blinders on your eyes and deafened your ears. You are spitting in the face of Jesus Christ and a day will come when you will stand before Him and be judged for your calling Christians fools. Now the truth is that if you are right in your unbelief of God the creator of the universe, and I am wrong, I have nothing to lose. But if I am right and you are wrong, you have EVERYTHING to lose. I lovingly say to you you foolish bubbas - you better think about it -seriously!! Will us Christians ever learn? To quit praying for you guys and stop throwing our pearls to swine???? Probably not, cause it's just built into us Christians. Sorry guys, you'll just have to put up with us and our foolishness cause we can't help it. Do we Christians expect you to understand? No! Only when you become one of us will you understand that all this love and concern is the love of Christ working through us... Go ahead - blast me! If Jesus could take it, I can take it!!!

ole faithful
Love you man.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot....
OK, folks…let's just suppose President Bush and the Congress completely ignored what it says about religion in our Constitution (seems they've been are getting some practice at doing that lately with some other provisions of that wonderful document…but I digress...)

And, let's further suppose that, from this point forward, BUDDISM will now be the official "State Religion" of the Government of the United States of America.

How would we rank and file Christians react to that THAT turn of events? Probably not so well, eh? However, the Buddhists would probably be overjoyed don't you think?

Yet, methinks some folks posting here sincerely believe that installing fundamentalist Christianity as the de-facto "State Religion" in the United States would be an absolutely GRAND idea.

And it probably would be…for them. But it probably WOULDN'T be so grand if you happened to be Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Moslem, or a Jew, or a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, or an Episcopalian or a Roman Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian or a Lutheran..

We are a nation of many different races, colors and creeds…and religions.

Need I say more?

Keith
That's ridiculous. We're Americans. We wouldn't support our own local church being the official one. Why?

We like having our minds free from the rule of the clergy. We like the comfort that if our own church went crazy, there's always another one.

That said, buddhism wouldn't be the worst way to go.

Lisa
Number one: Enjoy your vacation!

Number two: If I may ask, why Kenya? I've no problem with it, just wonder how you chose that particular destination.

Number three: I did read your whole post and noted that you said you feel the same about liberal muck rakers (my words, not yours). I merely pointed out that in our (and I'm not a fan of it either) "shock" society, "shock" sells. I will point out, however, that based on her "liberals are godless" statements, there is a basis in fact for it. I agree that many of the things she says are over the top. However, I believe she says many of the things to get a rise out of people, and make people think.

Your statement-"One can wonder why anyone would believe in God if she is an adequate representative of a Christian"-should be addressed as well. The term "christian" has been so overused by now, it's almost a meaningless description. Someone is a "christian" if they make it to church twice a year, or if they happen to know what a bible is. At least that's how our society views it. Honestly, true Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship, which most people don't appear to understand. It's sort of like calling yourself a lawyer without the license to practice law. You can talk to people who don't know any better but when you are put in a situation where others know what the requirements of being a lawyer are, it washes out. (probably not the best analogy but it's been a long day, and one I'm most familiar with).

As I stated earlier, the Church is ultimately to blame for this view of itself. We have allowed our witness to the world to pollute people's idea of the Savior. I know the devout on here are going to say that's what the bible predicts (narrow is the path, etc), but I don't necessarily believe that is the best way to convince a non-believer of what I'm saying.

But I want to challenge you to this. Just like you can't say, and I wouldn't say "Rush Limbaugh is an idiot; Rush Limbaugh is a man; All men are idiots," because imperfect humans call themselves Christians, doesn't mean the person who originally carried that name is non-existent or any less real.

"What I also don't like is that the religious right wants to dumb down our education system because they haven't yet accepted that God and Science are not at odds."

I totally agree with your statement about God and science being in agreement. I do disagree with the idea that the religious right are trying to dumb down our education system. I must assume you are referring to the evolution hypothesis being taught in schools. If you really study the scientific community's opinion of evolution, you will find that there is less favorable opinions of it than you might expect. One of the biggest problems with evolution right now is it is being taught as though it were the truth and not a hypothesis. In fact you won't see the words "hypothesis" and "evolution" in the same sentence in your children's science books. What you won't see is the alternative view of God creating it all anywhere in that book.

As to "dumbing down" our education system, I could make the argument that since we have embraced our "evolution is true" and many other "scientific facts" now pushed in contemporary books, our education system has gotten progressively worse. An attorney in my office has the eighth grade diploma from her grandfather hanging on her wall. It is of interest to me as it is from Iowa, which is where my grandfather was from as well. I was looking at the diploma and it listed the subjects and concepts he had successfully completed to earn the diploma; Latin, trigonometry, geography, calculus, biology, zoology; various english subjects; various historical subjects, etc. This diploma is from the eighth grade and near the turn of the 20th century! I graduated high school, college, and have a doctorate level degree and probably couldn't do half of that stuff! If anything, our educational system has gotten worse.

I know there are other variables besides the evolution I mentioned. I just stated that to say you can't make blanket statements such as "dumbing down" because evolution isn't taught.

Keith
You can't seriously be an American. If you are an American, how have you gone all these years without understanding the first thing about us?

Religion has a place in public for two reasons. First, we have the freedom to speak. Second, we have the right to be respresented.

No American worthy of the name is in favor of a theocracy. I'm so sick of that assertion from people who are supposedly Americans and are supposed to undestand who we are.

Seriously
It's so incredibly retarded to posit an American theocracy that anyone who discusses it, either in favor or against, should be banned from posting here.

finally
That was an excessively long post and for that I do apologize. It was probably fairly scattered in subjects. It's been a long day and my brain, what little there is, is frazzled.

Also, you will not get an argument from me about science and God not in agreement. In fact, I believe science does nothing but reinforces God's existence! Look at the complexity of the most advanced computer man has ever designed-it came from the mind of man. Your brain only uses (reportedly) about 2-10% of its capacity. Imaging what you could do with the rest!

Take your nose: You inhale the scent of a bakery (makes me hungry just thinking about it!); your nose is actually taking in a molecule of that smell, whatever it is, then converting it to an electrical impulse which travels to your brain, then through some (and I don't understand how) chemical/electrical interchange, your mind creates an image for you of that delicious bagel sitting there on the shelf, and you can almost taste it! That is amazing! And there are many more out there I could touch on.

The point is, I firmly believe that creation screams out the fact of a Creator. Because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. To an ant and his existence, we are beyond his comprehension and understanding; but we still exist, despite his lack of understanding.

Lisa, please don't take this as an attack on you. I don't know what you believe. Once I get started it's hard to stop, especially when I'm passionate about something.

Keith
It appears you have a problem with other people asserting their "morality" on you.

I have a client who is charged with manslaughter. To him it's not a problem because the guy and him had a fight. Is there a problem with this? In fact, let's say the dead guy is your brother...any problem letting my guy walk away?

continued
Because you should know he believes (according to his religion and beliefs) if a person is wronged, in actuality or in perception, killing the offending person is acceptable.

Here are my questions:
1. Who am I, and who are you to tell him otherwise?

2. And if you do, what gives you the right to impose your morality on him? Remember, according to him, he did nothing wrong.

Twodog
You rock man.

Definition
Atheist one who does not believe that God exists. Hum, wouldn't one have to at least acknowledge God's existance before they declared God doesn't exist-you really can't deny something exists if it never existed.

keith
be quiet your argument makes no sense what so ever. Buddist dont care about governing anything and is one of the only religons i know of that never really ruled anything.

i did hear some proof about an supposed theology but i dont trust the source all that much. I heard neal boortz saying something on the radio during the terri shcaivo thing. he was talking about Randall Terry saying the guy wanted to create a theocracy to end all abotions in america but i cant find any quotes of him saying anything like that, so i am not sure if boortz was being his usually "dont belive a thing i say on this show unless you already know it" or if he just has better reaseach capabilities. If anyone else has heard anything about this rumor let me know.

Twodog
I am thrilled with your post. Thank you. It is intelligent, it is kind, it is accurate as far as I can
discern. And you are right. The religious right is
certainly not the only problem with the dumbing down in
our education.

You have made my day, even though I suspect we are on
different sides of the political aisle.

I love intelligence and I love politeness. Again thanks.

As for Kenya, one week in a safari (a life-long dream) and
one week in working in a mission.


Lisa
Have a great time in Kenya, take lots of pictures and remember, an aisle is not a canyon...it can be crossed. I wish more people understood that!

:)

SEPARATION CHURCH & STATE
THE FOUNDING FATHERS (AN OVER A MILLION FOUNDERS) DID NOT COUNT ON A WALL SEPARATING "CHURCH AND STATE". THE FOUNDERS COUNTED ON A WALL SEPARATING CHURCH AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND A WALL BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES.

AS SOON AS YOU SAY "SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE" YOU TURN YOUR BACK ON OVER 150 YEARS OF HISTORY AND THE EXACT WORDS IN OUR CONSTITUTION REGARDING THE SUBJECT. TO WIT, ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" FOR OVER 150 YEARS THE STATES WERE FREE TO LEGISLATE REGARDING RELIGION AND MORALS. THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED THIS TO BE ESSENTIAL TO A HEALTHY REPUBLIC.

THEN A FEW INDIVIDUALS TOOK A DEEP BREATH AND USING THE 14th AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE CHANGED WHAT PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN THE WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THIS NATION. IT WAS PURE CASUISTRY. HOG WASH WITH PRETENSIONS. THE COURT USED THE 14th AMENDMENT AS MEANING WHATEVER 5 INDIVIDUALS ON THAT COURT BELIEVED TO BE "FAIR". WHEN THE 14th AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED NO ONE EVEN WHISPERED THAT IT WOULD EVER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

LATER SUCCEEDING INDIVIDUALS IN BLACK ROBES FOUND AND MUMBLED NEW MAGIC WORDS OF WITCHCRAFT LIKE "PENUMBRAL RIGHTS" AND "LIVING BREATHING CONSTITUTION". THE ONLY WAY THEY GOT AWAY WITH THIS AND CONTINUE TO GET AWAY WITH THIS IS BECAUSE THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENCY HAVE CEASED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY AS WELL AS THE COURT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESERVING OUR CONSTITUTION. AS A PUBLIC WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT DEIFYING A MAJORITY OF 5 OUT OF 9 VOTES BY UNELECTED (AND RATHER STRANGE INDIVIDUALS) IS TO TURN OUR BACKS ON WHATEVER VALUE OUR CITIZENSHIP HAS.

THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS IN REGARD TO A STATE'S RIGHTS TO IGNORE A CROSS ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY OR HAVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ETCHED IN STONE IN THE COURTHOUSE ARE SO UNPREDICTABLE BECAUSE THE COURT HAS LEFT ITS MOORINGS. EVERY MEMBER OF THE COURT HAS TO KNOW THAT ON THIS ISSUE PRECEDENT IS SIMPLY PAST ARBITRARY WHIMSY AND CAPRICE OF AT LEAST FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO CLEARLY USURPED THE LAW AS WRITTEN IN OUR CONSTITUTION.


Apologies first
I apologise in advance if this seems not to follow on, but a few people have posted responses to my vitriolic outbursts above in the time I have been away from my computer.
Some quotes from above, with my worthless liberal leftist atheistic nihilistic replies in brackets, appear in the following posts...

JDComments
“Why should people be exposed to the concept of blind chance determining our development…”
[Because blind chance is one factor (mutation) in producing the population variation upon which the process of natural selection works.]

DavidM:

“1. What views are allowed to be presented. Currently the darwinists have enforced 'their view only' in public schools. Schools which all taxpayers are forced to pay for.
2. Changes over time evolution is perfectly acceptable to any Christian I have ever met. Its the origin of LIFE which is often applied to darwin's theories.”
[So you have a hypothesis for the origins of life, complete with mechanisms? No-one knows for sure how life started of course, but if the creationists had their way we would be producing a generation of students who would not even have the inspiration to explore that question.]

Nature still tends towards chaos, not order.
[Now you’re on dangerous ground. Don’t argue the Second Law of Thermodynamics! You’ll only get burned! See the Answers in Genesis website to see why.]

I think it will be impossible to scientifically ascertain where life began.
[You may turn out to be right. But, who was it who said that those who call things impossible are often interrupted by those who have succeeded?]

Since he has set himself up as arbiter of what can be learned and not, perhaps we should ask where Stu gets his knowledge? Maybe he is too blind to see that his 'faith' is simply in different men than the ones who taught me about mine.
[The difference is empirical evidence.]

ORIGIN cannot be determined from residual evidence.
[Why not?]
Nor can it be determined by natural selection, whilst other things can.
[True, although once you have replication, you will have natural selection of some kind.]

This is like seeing a knife mark at a crime scene and attempting to determine where the knife came from and who made it.
[And I believe this is done regularly by forensic scientists.]

Since you asked me a question, explain to me how genetic sequences jump from say 96 pairs to 46 pairs? Adding or removing pairs almost invariably either kills the cells or makes the resulting creature sterile...
[Please tell me what you mean by “jump”]

Persnickety
"But, in time, MATTER evolved from nothing.
[Careful with the use of the word “evolved”, there Persnickety]

"Then, after millions of years, this matter evolved into different metals.
[You probably mean by nuclear fusion in a supernova]

"And, again, in time, this material evolved into gears, sprockets, springs, hands and stems.
"And then all these parts put themselves together and made the first SWISS WATCH!
"And, by the way, it wound itself up, and runs perfectly to this day!
"If this sounds far-fetched to you, then you ought to hear the one abou the THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!"
[I can thoroughly recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins.]

Verbivore

" I like how my friend put it. She said, "I can take thread, needle, and fabric and throw them up into the air however many times I want, but it will never make itself into a quilt."

[Nor will pieces of Boeing 747 self-assemble into a plane if shaken together. Just as well we don’t reproduce by throwing bits of human body around, then! Seriously, you have not understood the theory of natural selection.]


...I do like the nick "Verbivore"...

homer
“But my favorite part of the "...appreciate better..." quote was the tail - "because they don't have pat, ready-made answers to life and their place in the universe like the god-deluded do." Ever notice how the people WITHOUT answers are revered by the heathen?

[Not people without answers, people without meaningless answers]

According to Stu, they're actually smarter BECAUSE they have fewer answers. Hey Stu - try choosing your professors, doctors, lawyers or accountants with that logic. You already see how well it's working with your politicians...”

[And who are my politicians, homer strawman maker?]

Concerned
“Definition
Atheist one who does not believe that God exists. Hum, wouldn't one have to at least acknowledge God's existance before they declared God doesn't exist-you really can't deny something exists if it never existed. “

[You’re right that it is a bit strange to define oneself in terms of the non-existence of a mythological character. But the term atheist is only necessary in the presence of the superstitious. I am also an a-Thorist and an a-Zeusist and I sometimes even secretly doubt the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but then I guess we share this in common so you too are a non-believer. If you would kindly stop believing in your sky fairy you could help cure my crisis of existential nomenclature! Thank you for being Concerned.]

Twodog
“Demonstrate the "fact" of evolution to me. “
[Try: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]

“Give me a PROVEN FACT that evolution on a planetary scale has occured. (sic)”
[ Science doesn’t give proofs, only mathematics does. Anyway, in the spirit of your question, got to: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_horseevolution.html for the classic textbook example, then wait for the creationists to pile in with their half-cent’s worth, and trust me, that’s over-priced!]

2. Explain to me with FACTS "how" evolution occured (what started it all). Again, we are not talking about hypotheses here. Just scientifically PROVEN facts."

[Fact: the Big Bang model predicted the background microwave radiation that was subsequently discovered. Fact: Supernova use light elements to make heavier ones: you are made of starstuff! (Carl Sagan) Fact: carbon has an (astonishing) ability to bond with other non-metal atoms to form chains and rings Fact: no-one knows for sure how the first single-celled organism came into existence Fact: the bible does not give a molecular mechanism for the generation of life either Fact: the kinds of molecules found in living things can be made without the presence of life Fact: there is no law of physics that prohibits the spontaneous formation of a replicating molecule by chance chemical reactions Fact: (this is the evolution bit) evolution has happened (see above) Fact: natural selection has been observed (by you, if you have ever had more than one ‘flu shot).]

...good questions and really quite inadequate answers...

Twodog 2
"Atheists really have to think..."
1. Why do atheists really have to think? Is it because they look at a universe that came into existence somehow, and in some way completely beyond the ability for humankind to grasp, and then say "not by God, as He doesn't exist."?
[No, you’d have to invent a god, then deny her existence. Atheists have to think because from an early age, in most Western cultures, children are given pat answers to the “big” questions and are actively discouraged from thinking too hard about them. Most often the answers are religious in nature. It takes considerable effort to rethink this (not necessarily fundamentalist Christian) upbringing. Once one has realised that religion is a control technique and that really none of it can be demonstrated to be true, it gets easier. Then you realise there are no limits to the thinking one can do. Really, there are people out there who give up science because the truths they discover conflict with the bible. Sorry if you’re offended by the lower-case b but I think it’s a nasty piece of historical fiction, featuring some of the most mindlessly violent characters in all mythology, mind-numbingly repetitive, and I have not much regard for it, even as literature.]

Twodog 3
"Define atheism, then demonstrate the proof that God doesn't exist. Facts only, not opinions."

[Atheism is a rejection of the existence of God.
Re proof: God is your hypothesis, not mine. The onus is on you!]

"1. Explain how a "non-believer" appreciates the staggering wonder of the universe better than a "fundy".
2. How does the "fundy" explain the staggering wonder of the universe and how it pertains to him/her?"

[“We were designed by a creator” is a dull, dead-end, obscure statement. “We came to be human by little ratcheting selection forces working on tiny differences between the members of out ancestor populations over vast lengths of time” not only stretches our imaginations but is staggeringly simple and beautiful. I contend (as this is subjective, you could obviously counter-contend) that a fundy cannot allow himself to think this way, unless secretly. Can a fundamentalist hold a scientific view and a literal biblical view inside his head at the same time, without suffering great confusion? As you can tell, I hold science highly both asthetically, and as the mechanism that gives us the best possible quality of information, and gets us closest to the truth. Many non-believers share this worldview. Truth: there's a word for you to have a go at!]

"Define faith."

[I use the word in the sense of "spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof" although there are other senses too. The word proof I extend to include "something so well demonstrated that it would be perverse to deny it". In my dictionary, two words up from "Faith" is "Fairy Story".]

uh no
i am sorry but the definition of faith lots of meanings and non are what you gave stu, not entirely sure if you defined anything there

faith /fe??/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith here is a link cuz i was bored this morning

Stu, Keith
In point of fact, you have proved absolutely nothing. All of your arguments are predicated on your worldview, which is materialistic empiricism. I was a student of Dr. Carl Sagan--sat in his classroom. I was an empiricist for over 30 years. I have been a born-again Christian since 1957, and I have spent a LIFETIME studying these ideas deeply. To dismiss us all as ignorant, superstitious throwbacks to the Middle Ages is to display your arrogant ignorance. I understand you, because I once WAS you. And as you yourself have admitted, you cannot now, nor will you ever be able to PROVE there is no God. But if you were to look objectively into your own souls, you would find a god -- their names are STU and KEITH. In this all of humanity shares your curse -- we resist tenaciously any attempt by another to tell us what to do, to inform us as to good and evil, to be in control of our lives. We covet this position for our own selfish ends, and this is the basis of all sin -- PRIDE.

Christians in America are not interested in taking over the country or ramming their morals down anyone else's throat. What we are angry about is the total depravity of our culture, the rampant sexual perversion, the murder of the unborn, and the inability of secular humanists to recognize that ALL of our laws are based on SOMEONE'S idea of that which is right and that which is wrong. In order for you, Stu, and you, Keith, to posit your ideas about rights, governance, science, and morality, you too have to begin somewhere in your thinking. Something or someone informs your thought process. Please be intellectually honest enough to admit that your "religion" is secular humanism, and your "rights" are all relative to you as you do not believe in truth with a capital T.

Stu
Good to hear from you. I'm on my way to work so I will respond in a bit to your answers.

To DavidM
"Nature still tends towards chaos, not order. "

I would suggest to you that nature seems chaotic because
we still have so very much to learn about it. It is my
presumption that the Laws of Nature were created by God,
they were created "perfectly," and they are unchanging.
Even evolution happens because of something - not chaos,
but because of a law, if you will.

These laws of nature do not always work for us on an
individual basis and so we tend to look at them as
chaotic or even evil. When a town gets wiped out by a
tornado, it is pretty easy to see it as evil.

However, without the the perfect laws of nature how could
we predict (and perhaps someday control) weather, hybridize our crops, breed better cattle, find cures for
illnesses, find uses for our minerals, on and on and on.

What continues to amaze me, even with (or perhaps particularly with) people like famous scientists such as Hawkings and Dawkins, is that they do not seem to get
back to the very beginning. If the entire world
started with an oil slick, the questions begs - who
created the oil slick.

Many evolutionists are Christians, in spite
of what you may have heard from a certain sector to the
contrary.

I'm leaving tomorrow on vacation and I must go and pack
now. But if you care to respond to this, I will check
into the Archive section when I get back.

Meanwhile - Jambo, habari za asubuhi, bwana. Asante sana. That's about my limit of Kiswahili. I am relying
on my English (once again) to get me through.

delete comment you don't like, do you???
Apparently, you tollerate no dissention from your views, as I see my earlier comment was deleted. Sadly, this is representative behavior of most who worship at the Holy Church of the Sentate and House of Representatives. There is only one truth - and apparently, you alone get to decide what that is. Thanks for enlightening me............................

Stu, my rebuttal
1. “Demonstrate the "fact" of evolution to me. “
[Try: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]
P.S. This link gave me a file not found link. However, I went to the FAQ for the website and found the following:


"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory"

Totally agree with the first sentence. However, nowhere did I say permutations within species are not occuring. What I did say is prove with FACT evolution amongst species occured. If it did we should still see those "in-between species" wandering around somewhere, agreed? More importantly, your website says the following: "Evolution is both a fact and a THEORY." My point. It is a theory. Permutations within a species are a FACT. Evolution is a THEORY.

Stu rebuttal
Allow me to parse, if you will.

2. Explain to me with FACTS "how" evolution occured (what started it all). Again, we are not talking about hypotheses here. Just scientifically PROVEN facts."

[Fact: the Big Bang model predicted the background microwave radiation that was subsequently discovered.

Agreed, but what caused the Big Bang? I believe the closest science has come to the beginning is .000000001 of a second after, or something along those lines. But that is still not 0.0 or before. My son was in the bedroom alone. The door was slammed, after I told him not to slam the door. Does that mean he did it? Answer: No, his window was open and the wind blew it closed. (I love to use that one in trials)

Fact: Supernova use light elements to make heavier ones: you are made of starstuff! (Carl Sagan)

Agreed, with caveat; Genesis 2:7 "...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground..."

Fact: carbon has an (astonishing) ability to bond with other non-metal atoms to form chains and rings
No argument; may speak of an amazing Creator!

Fact: no-one knows for sure how the first single-celled organism came into existence

Agreed with caveat: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth." Could that have been at big bang time 0.0?

Fact: the bible does not give a molecular mechanism for the generation of life either

False: Genesis 2:7 "...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being."


Fact: the kinds of molecules found in living things can be made without the presence of life

Agreed, but what does this prove? Are they alive? Has any of those chemicals evolved into a living being of any sort and jumped out of the test tube they were created in?

Fact: there is no law of physics that prohibits the spontaneous formation of a replicating molecule by chance chemical reactions

Not a fact, a conjecture; If so, it should be still happening today. Why aren't we seeing it happen around us?

Fact: (this is the evolution bit) evolution has happened (see above)
False: Permutation is still happening; no proof evolution has happened, or is still happening today. If it did, why isn't it still occuring?

Fact: natural selection has been observed (by you, if you have ever had more than one ‘flu shot).]
Agreed that I've been inoculated with the flu shot, but come to think of it, I've never developed HIV, or any other viral disease, from Flu shots either, which under the theory of evolution, could happen.


You are the one stating evolution is a fact. Hence you must, to prove something is fact, prove ALL elements. In court we call this "proving ALL the elements of said crime" (shameless plug on my part :) ). I have walked many a person out the front door of the courtroom on criminal cases where the state fails to prove an element of the crime against them. That is why it is called an "element", which is a "necessary part of the whole."

Stu cont.
"Define atheism, then demonstrate the proof that God doesn't exist. Facts only, not opinions."

[Atheism is a rejection of the existence of God.
Re proof: God is your hypothesis, not mine. The onus is on you!]

Incorrect on that one, my friend. Society has always, in some way or another, believed in God. It is only recently we have become the society of randomness and chance.

In a trial, whether civil or criminal, the person wishing to challenge the position or allege the wrong, must come in and they carry the "burden of proof". In a civil trial, that burden is "a preponderance of the evidence." Basically that is 50.1%. In a criminal trial, that is "beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt." No quantifiable amount can be placed on that one.

So as it stands, you are choosing to change the norm. That makes you the plaintiff. If you are coming into court with the argument "the onus (or burden) is on you", I move for a directed verdict and the court has no choice but to grant it, as you've presented no case.

What atheism is, is a faith-based believe that God doesn't exist. I submit to you, that looking around at this marvelous creation and all its wonders, including supernovas, quasars, black holes, neutron stars, etc., can lead you to no other conclusion that this COULDN'T have happened by chance.

The question then becomes: How did it happen? I put my faith in a Creator who created this magnificant universe and all life in it, for us to enjoy, explore, and teach us about Him and His love for us. I don't believe I am an accident. I believe I was created for a purpose. If you have children (I have 3), you don't think they look at their room, their clothes, their toys, etc., and think "I got all this stuff by chance" do you? Of course not. It's there because you as a parent, love them and want them to know you love them, and they know it.

In my humble opinion, it takes more faith to believe this is all by chance; That I am here for no reason and when my life is over, that's all there is.

You may say, you don't need faith to live. Wrong...do you know without a doubt you will have a job tomorrow? Or that you will not die before you finish this missive? Or even that the sun is right now still burning in space? No, you have faith in those things (as to the sun thing, if it were to suddenly explode, you wouldn't know for about 9 minutes or so, but you probably know that)

My life is lived by faith. Yours is too. I just choose to believe in a Creator who loves me and created me for a reason.

Let me ask you a question: If everything I believe in is wrong, and I choose to live a life of faith, and then die, what have I lost? Many of the things I choose to abstain from (premarital sex, drugs, alcohol, wild parties) don't benefit me in the long run. You may or may not think those things are fun, and I'm not implying you do, but those are the common things we "fundamental" Christians tend to abstain from. So when I'm dead, I may have missed out on things which some, though not all, consider fun, but it has no effect on me in the long run as it's now all over.
BUT, if I'm right, I've gained Eternity. So in gambling terms, it's a win/win situation for me.

Now let's ask you the same question: What if you are wrong and there is a Creator who is loving but also demands punishment for violating His laws? What have you lost out on?

See, to me that is the scary part.

I would highly recommend the Book "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He is a former atheist and legal scholar. He started out the book proving God doesn't exist.

Another really good one is "Heaven" by Randy Alcorn. It gives his impression of a glimpse of Eternity and Heaven based on his understanding of scriptures.

You come across as a fairly well educated person and I think you would enjoy both of these works. As for the length of this, I apologize. Sometimes it's hard to condense these ideas into nuggets (as you correctly noted in your answers)


Stu - meaningless answers?
i'm not sure stu, i don't think they're meaningless, i just don't think you'd understand them, or the value of the thought behind them. from what you've written here, it seems the only true knowledge is 'scientific' knowledge - despite the fact that you will act on other types of knowledge every day. (Intuitive, anecdotal, logically reasoned, generally revealed, etc.) the fact: 'scientific' knowledge alone can not explain your existence here. you are trying to explain a multi-dimensional existence with a 2D drawing (science). It's similar to pictures of atomic and subatomic structures in physics textbooks - there to help you envision, but not what science 'believes.' They BELIEVE in the math, not the drawing.) and where you fail to do so, you absolve yourself of responsibility for an answer by saying it 'can't be known.' ignorance is not an answer, nor does it rise to the level of a 'compelling argument.' if it comforts you to believe that i've (and many others here) checked my intellect at the door to 'find God' then so be it. either you're comfortable that it matches the empirical evidence observed here or you're not.

my view of the evidence of the contributors here is that they're readers, not TV watchers. they have developed vocabularies. they are comfortable with difficult abstractions. they are comfortable being intellectually challenged. they lean to the right side of the IQ bell curve. not all mind you, but the majority. i can point to all kinds of writing here and show that my reasoning on the matter is sound. you're view - that we're all science bashing hymn singing mouth breathers, well not so much. (and we're not here to bash 'science' - good Lord, who do you think invented it? - but we don't elevate beyond what it's capable of either.) and to me, none of this matches what I would expect of the same group from your viewpoint.

At the end of the day, your worldview has to cogently explain all you see and experience here. It can't. Many here know this because we've already been to the rest stop you're sitting at. Many of us actually believed JUST LIKE YOU, before we dug deeper and began to realize it didn't hold water intellectually - or according to reason in other words. You make the same mistake many of the authors you reference do. And yes. I've read Dawkins. I've read Sagan. Hawking, Serway, Feynman, Greene, Newton, Wolfram, and a bunch of others beyond that. They can find every answer they want and they'll never touch the ultimate question. Einstein himself, not to mention a few of those on my list, acknowledged as much.

For instance, can your worldview explain morality? Nope. No God, no morality. No 'standard', no 'wrong'. That simple. Only what you think versus what I think (- and I think you're wrong.) That fact that we both think there IS a standard, a right and wrong, is telling. Culturally taught? Why all the agreement then? Why universal abhorrence of murder? Rape? Cowardice? etc? Is it then just instinct? Consider instinct then, but consider specifically competing instincts in a closed system and the 'thing' that must choose between any 2 competing instincts. For instance, the desire to jump in a raging river to save the drowning child versus the self-preservation instinct telling you to stay out of the water. So what is 'that thing' telling you to suppress the latter and obey the former. It is neither of them, and therefore not in and of itself, and instinct.

The difference between yourself and us my friend, is that we've been where you are. We've asked all the same questions and pursued the answers in the same venues. We found the answers wanting for 'truth' and truth is our highest ideal. Science can not, 'empirically' - give you that. You need to expand your reading list now. If truth is what you want, I know where you can find it. And it will never, ever let you down intellectually or otherwise. Right now, you're just like most players in the game. you don't know the rules, who the real players are, that there's a game going on even. (That ignorance btw, is one of the objectives of one of the teams...your just another point 'scored.')

One last point. You wrote in one of your posts that none of us will ever KNOW whether or not there is a God. I understand where the view comes from. But I'll offer something of a counter ~

IF Omnipotent God/Creator with all the characteristics we attribute to Him ~

THEN Your intellect is a gift from Him.
THEN Your intellect completely exercised to capacity can not 'destroy' or remove Him.

I encourage you to take off your blinders and start using that brain to the utmost. Ask every difficult question you can think of, but don't stop there, and don't limit it to the scientific - there is equal value in other kinds of knowledge - lest you remain a one-legged stool. Witness philosophy, logic, grammar, rhetoric, hermanuetics, history, cultural humanities (Western or Greek thought versus Eastern, Hebrew thought, etc.) Most importantly, take on faith for now until your reason catches up, that there ARE answers and if you've been given the capacity to ask the question, there's a good chance you've been given a capacity to find the answer. Just can't be intellectually lazy about it. THAT is what keeps MOST people in your state. Not intellectual brilliance, but anti-intellectual laziness.

Last but not least. Pray - even if you don't believe. For me is started with a prayer that went 'If you're really there I'll give you about 5 minutes to show me MF...' It wasn't elegant. I didn't really believe. But He still answered it. And that's the final point. If everything else we're saying is true, then it's not something you have to take on someones word - or on 'faith - it's something you can experience. He said so. If that ISN'T TRUE for YOU - then neither is He, for anyone. Right? Merely ask Him to show you. And then fasten your freakin' seatbelt partner. It's an E-ride and a half...

sorry for the length. i was trying to be brief, but tough to get anything on this in 5 sentences. it's a complex world. empirically stated.

THE OTHER LISA HAS STRUCK AGAIN
At 11:37 this morning the imposter Lisa wrote once again.

Lisa the Second: If you must pretend to be me please at least spell correctly and use proper sentence structure. You could also drop some of the "attitude."

Meanwhile I have written to Town Hall about the matter.
I have written twice before on another matter without so much as an acknowledgment that I had done so. But ever
hopeful, I have written once again.

I would like to know if others have also been completely
ignored by the head office. Has anyone else ever had their
moniker used by someone else?

Lisa
No one has used my moniker, to my knowledge (and I doubt they would want to, for that matter), and I've never written to the head office.

But nice to see you back!


Homer
Well stated!

I've also noted that I try to contain my answers but they just run on. Especially on a subject of this complexity.

Jeruubal
You are correct sir. Upon reading the Constitution I find no 'wall of separation' between church and state in the document. UNLESS people who say so are saying that the founders clearly intended a republic and not a theocracy, to which I would wholeheartedly agree while pointing out this particular point has never been a question historically. In any event, the former is as indisputable as the latter, but in context of the question are actually completely separate issues. I take exception with the fact that the former context is routinely used to impose a cultural silence on any and all acknowledgement of the specifically 'christian' faith in any public arena. Usually this comes from those who say that 'clearly' such a separation exists in the document. (If so 'clear' in fact, why all the discussion? And why all of it relatively recent? Post SCJ Blackmon in fact?) Think that answers, but let me know if not.

Thanks Twodog
You're pretty solid yourself. This kind of discussion never lends itself to the messageboard format, but we try eh? Ever feel like you're the last fireman in a burning building full of lotus-eating narcoleptics? (Your gratuitous Greek Lit ref for the day) Yeah. It's kinda like that...

homer & Twodog
Just a note to say that I do not possess analytical skills of either of you gentlemen, but I have thoroughly enjoyed having your company here on this board today. Homer -- you especially touched my heart with your words. You know me, my friend. I don't always have the energy these days to pursue rigorous debate on these vital issues, and yet I know that God has much still to do in my life. You both, as well as others such as Mountain Rose, have been a blessing and real encouragement to me during a moment of rather poor health. Thank you.

For the skeptics and cynics, try reading C. S. Lewis -- "Mere Christianity"; and Geisler & Turek -- "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist".

You're so welcome SDan
But you know it ain't me. Sorry to hear about your health issues. Difficult as it is - the quality of the illusion here is after all, sensational - remember that the pain is temporal, and you are not. Look me up in oh, a billion years or so and you can tell me how bad it was. I'm betting you'll have forgotten all about it by then. (That's just the nature of the temporal versus the non-temporal - confirmed by both scriptural revelation and general revelation (physics. See Relativity.) For what it's worth, 6 years ago I knew NONE of this. Analytical ability? Couldn't even spell it. (H.S. Diploma only, C student here.) So I asked. ("Please...Let me SEEEE...") Voila. The secret? (Well not really - I mean, it's in the book after all) - if you're asking for what He wants FOR you - in this case, knowledge of both Himself and Truth about the world around you - flat out, you'll get it. With clarity. It's all about alignment of Will - yours to His. If you like C.S. Lewis, try St. Augustine. Particularly 'Confessions' and later - after more apologetic study - 'City of God.' GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy is a great primer for COG. 'Get' the one, you'll 'get' the other. 'Confessions' is 1700 yrs old and one of the most personally relevant books I've ever had the pleasure of reading. Make that your next read and take your time with it. Just a stunning autobiography from one of the deepest intellectual thinkers of any age - all in plain language. It's his story, but it's all our stories too - a personal spiritual wandering told in unbelievable detail. Enjoy.

homer
If I hadn't verified for myself the truth of that which you have written, I would never have believed your story. What an amazing mind you must have! I have read Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man", which Lewis listed as one of the 10 most influential books he had ever read. I have never read St. Augustine, but on your advice I shall within the next week or two.

I love what you said about the alignment of the wills, because it is true. And that moment of despair, when you shake your fists at the ceiling and scream -- "PROVE yourself to me!". I have been there, and had the same experience -- an almost immediate awareness that He IS real and present, always. This after growing up in the church, then turning away for 30 years, only to arrive at the end of my own road. I look very much forward to meeting you some day.

Folks
Thank you for the time you have taken to reply to what I wrote. I do claim to have considered what you say but I'm afraid I stand by what I wrote, as in my view the body of knowledge built up by scientific observation (as far as I can understand and recall it)is the best knowledge we have, and the evocations of the necessity of submitting to supernatural beings of unlikely existence leaves me cold, I'm afraid. The universe is too interesting to be a marionette puppet.

Stu
I've got good news for you, my friend. Despite your lack of belief in Him, He still believes in you! While you have that magic "breath of life", there is still hope. You already have the faith part down. Honestly, try reading the two books I recommended to you. If you are the intellectual you claim, you won't have a problem reading them. It will give you more data to peruse in your quest for knowledge.


Stu
As I have said, you seem to be a reasonable person, and I think I understand you more than you may realize. And it is my understanding that God does not want marionette puppets, either. That is why He created us with free will. We -- all of us -- are free to reject His Being and His love. As I understand it, love must be freely given and received, or it is not love, but something else entirely. It is not in our nature to want someone else running our lives. We are free to let God in, or we can be slaves (puppets) to ourselves, which is what so many people seem to want. If you have made it this far on your own and are truly happy to be your own slave, and if you think that everything you now know will someday fade away into nothingness, then you are free to travel that road. But I believe it takes faith -- great faith -- to believe that what you think in your own mind and soul are real, and that only empirical knowledge can inform us as to how and why we are all here.

oh - still Homer - laptop ID.
oh - still Homer - laptop ID.

"The universe is too interesting to be a marionette puppet."

You have no idea my friend, and I guess that brings you and I full circle. You're viewing an unbelievably deep and rich, multi-layered, multi-dimensional existence through a very narrow lense (science), and just an average one at that in relation to other knowledge products.

I believe this started with you telling me that you (and atheists at large) could appreciate 'more' because you...what was it?...something about not having any preconceived notions - being open to it all - having to think 'more' because you didn't have some set pat doctrine to inform you and keep you from thinking for yourself? Yeah, something like that. Yet here you are. Voluntarily backed into the framework of a very narrow position within the context of 'general revelation' - the (g)od of the 21st century SCIENCE (that as revealed by experimentation and observation) - apparently sworn to the utter denial of all other types of revelation despite the accepted fact of their existence and validity. For instance, a logical syllogism isn't science, yet you use it's structure frequently in your day to day life. (you know for instance, not to run into a building everyone is running out of despite not knowing why they're running out.) The multiplication table isn't science - it didn't spring from experimentation and repeated observation, yet it exists in perpetual validity despite your lack of 'belief' in it. (It's validity would in fact REMAIN completely intact whether we were here or not.)

And here I am, strapped down by all my doctrine, yet apparently far more free to engage in the pursuit of real, true and valid knowledge from a variety of intellectual avenues than you'll apparently ever be. And more importantly, finding that knowledge not contradictory, but harmonious with itself, the existence it describes and the reality I experience every day and in every detail. Puzzling isn't it? In any case, as this is where we stand, personally I'd appreciate it if you would take back any idea you ever had about people of faith being close-minded simpletons or whatever it was you called us. (If only to yourself. You don't have to, I'd just appreciate it.) Reading each of our respective arguments, I don't believe anyone one else would draw the same conclusion. And I think I've proven that while I understand you, your worldview, and your standards of proof pretty well, (and am quite comfortable in those arena's) you understand mine little if at all. (Thus - just factually speaking - I have MORE knowledge, not less - if the words "more" and "less" have any meaning. No charge for the rhetoric lesson.) Peace out brother...






Homer, Achilles, & SDan
You know one of the things I'm going to enjoy about eternity? I'll have all of it to explore this universe God has created for us! And He'll be right there with me! I think that's pretty cool.
I don't know if you've ever read the book Heaven by Randy Alcorn, but you should. It will change your outlook on eternity and heaven forever.

Achilles
I appreciate your very considered reply. I can only ask you if you consider it possible that there is no such thing as a god, or is that question off-limits for you?

Stu
I got a bit confused yesterday about these monikers (Achilles/homer). I think they are the same person alternating between a laptop and a PC. At least it appears that way to me. Anyway, I get confused here sometimes in these threads, keeping the avatars straight.

To Stu -- EYE have considered the possibility that there is no God, no Creator, no First Being, almost from the beginning of my life. I was brought up in a fundamentalist Christian church, never questioned anything I was taught, and when I went away to college was immediately exposed to more scientific and empirical approaches which I found much more satisfying intellectually. As I indicated before (maybe here, maybe on another thread), I had some great professors like Carl Sagan, Owen Gingerich, Marv Wilson, and others you have never heard of. I rejected the Christian worldview in favor of the more objective (I surmised) scientific model.

Then, as I traveled through my adult life, little things began happening. Miracles, I call them, but maybe not so profound to others. I would ask questions, and I got answers. People would pop into my life at just the right time. But mainly it was the evil I saw on the news every night that finally forced me to go back and start over in my head and try to comprehend what was going on. The evil, not the good, is what I don't understand. Humanity is NOT learning from past mistakes. We continue to rush towards our own destruction. People are selfish, self-obsessed, self-absorbed, and hateful to each other. In couples, families, homes, towns, cities, states, and countries all over the world. War never stops, and it seems we will not be satisfied until we kill everyone on the planet.

I HAD to know why. The only answer that satisfies me is the one in the Bible. It explains why we are the way we are. It makes sense. And God is a PERSON whom I can know. I can talk to Him, and He to me. Obviously over time much of the former "mysteries" of nature have been explained by science (Copernicus, Newton, Einstein), and so humanity appears to have less "need" for a God to explain natural phenomena. EXCEPT for the human heart. No one has been able to explain it, and the evil it produces. Bob Dylan wrote a song long ago entitled "Serve Somebody". He's right -- we all have to "serve" somebody. "It may be the devil (or ourselves) or it may be the Lord", but each of us is captive to our nature. This is a proven fact, in all the textbooks on human psychology. So the Scriptural model, in the end, takes deeper thought and makes more sense to me than any other explanation of reality. Science tells me HOW, but can never explain WHY.

I urge you again to read Geisler and Turek, and C. S. Lewis. You will not regret it.

sdan
You couldn't understand the "evil in the human heart" so you became religious?

Humans are hardwired to look for patterns and explanations (presumably because of the evolutionary benefits brought by such abilities). I think a person who thinks this way may have fallen for the mistake that can be easily made to confuse coincidence for divine plan, and misunderstand crime statistics and probability.
Statistically people are overwhelmingly goodwilled and generous and it is mostly brain chemistry / architecture that gives rise to (relatively rare) antisocial behaviour or crime, and mental illness, not an "evil heart".
Why would scripture be a good source of knowledge on this issue when we can probe brain function, measure dopamine levels etc. and produce new models from which to understand human behaviour?
What credibility does scripture have when it has inspired so much hatred and "evil" between humans?

Maybe I should suspect you of being a "friendly" christian apologist, or trying to be CS Lewis!

I've read some of the calculated propaganda of CS Lewis and found it fundamentally depressing.

Under "homer" a bit earlier...
"For instance, can your worldview explain morality? Nope. No God, no morality."

There are two problems with this:

1. There are ethical atheists.

2. Morality is an example of an extended phenotype (genes cause us to not only behave cooperatively with other humans but we create laws or conventions of behaviour). I can't think of a mammal that doesn't have social conventions similar to our "morality", although you might find those behaviours repugnant translated into human terms. If morality has a genetic basis, then it's appearance is quite simply and obviously explained by natural selection - not survival of the fittest by dog-eat-dog, but survival of those who have found the best way to survive and reproduce! The fact that we are caring in an extended family / local community sense and that we are violent in warfare are not necessarily inconsistent, SO morality can quite easily be explained without reference to supernatural teapots...sorry, deities.

Stu
You are a rarity, I must say. In all my years of debates on these and other forums, you are the exception, not the rule. If only you could see how close we are in our thinking. I KNOW how you feel. I hope you don't think me presumptuous for saying this. But everything you are saying, I have said too. I wouldn't say that "I became religious" at all. I really don't consider myself "religious", as I do not attend an organized church, and I consider religion a man-made contrivance across all cultures. It is the FACT of the need for this template for humans that I find fascinating and relevant to me. I agree with homer/Achilles -- you are so close -- you have the faith part down, you really do. You just don't recognize it as such at this point. In order to understand my POV, you have to see that I cede over to another control of my thinking and actions. I know him from his words. I speak to him. Now, I understand mental illness, and brain chemicals, and there are real conditions such as schizophrenia which create in a person's mind delusions and hallucinations. I am not insane, but I believe that God is real and loves me and wants me to freely love him. It is the reason I was put here. I feel it is my duty as his child to tell others that he is real. It's as if you know a great secret, a wonderful thing, and you want to share it because it is the only thing that has ever really made you happy. Nothing else has ever brought me this much peace and joy. Maybe I am all wrong, but I have nothing to lose by believing, and possibly quite a bit to ultimately gain. My instinct tells me just as surely that my life has a purpose and meaning beyond this life, and I need to be about the business of preparing for a new life in the next realm, and not simply trying to make myself happy and content here.

I confess I do love C. S. Lewis. He was the numero uno Christian apologist of the 20th Century, and our life stories are eerily similar -- right down to upbringing and physical impairments. I mean so much so that it freaks me out to think about it at times. He INSISTED that his faith be based on reason and logic. And in the Bible God commands us to be ready at all times to explain the reasons for the hope that is within us. What Lewis called "naturalism" I call empiricism -- "belief" in only that which can be verified by the five senses, without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations. The truth is exactly the opposite of naturalism's premise -- in fact, that which we see here all around us is an extension of Heaven, made by the Creator King. The world beyond this one is real, and this one we live in is an illusion, or substitute for something much more perfect and profound. But we say that God cannot be real because we can't see him, or because we are deluded by brain chemicals or science "proofs", when in fact they prove only that we are more complex than we every imagined. Blind people cannot see the stars, but that does not mean that no stars exist.

sdan
You raise a quite pertinent point about the afterlife, for which you are to some extent preparing. I wonder what you would do differently if you did not believe in the hereafter. I have no such illusions and find it a source of motivation that this is the only life I have; when I die the mixture of chemicals of which I am constistuted will be denatured by decomposers in the soil (probably following recovery of my calorific value at the crematorium - I wonder if they could find a way to put that energy to use?...). I might have another life in the sense of my constituent atoms being recycled possibly in another living thing, but probably not. My soul (as you might call it) is really a complex illusion, all pure chemistry and gone just as soon as it was formed, on the geological time scale. All that will be left is chemical imprints in the brains of those I knew.
My brief time in this form on this planet has to be considered an astonishing piece of fortune and is not for wasting. I find it very comforting to be part of a natural life-death cycle that has existed at least for several billion years and I sympathise with those whose junior school teachers lied about the class goldfish going to heaven and who still believe it (are there animals in heaven?!). It robs the immediacy of the single life we definitely have for the distressingly false promise of the afterlife we almost certainly will not have.

I wonder too what you think of Pascal's Wager. I think to maintain some kind of religion on the off-chance of meeting a creator is a betrayal of my worldview and of yours.

Stu
I have never given much thought to Pascal's Wager, because I really don't believe I am making a "bet", although in the strictest sense I must concede that we all are. Even Lewis admitted that. After reading Geisler and Turek, I wrote to Frank Turek about Palagianism, because this is still a big question with me. (see this link if you are interested -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism). I am still wrestling with the concept of humanity's "free will". If, as it clearly states in the Bible, sin entered into the world through Adam and Eve (as individuals or somewhere during pre-history to people in general, depending on your beliefs), and if, as a consequence, we are all tainted by sin and in need of redemption, then we are not truly "free". We had no choice in our own physical birth, right? Adam and Eve chose to sin, and so we are all condemned -- not our doing. So we were placed on this path without choosing it. Where is the "free will"? I cannot answer this one yet. But I am now reading the book "Heaven" by Randy Alcorn which Twodog recommended, and on the waiting list at the library for "Confessions", by St. Augustine. "Heaven" gives great insight into what awaits us beyond the grave from a man who has studied over 150 books on the subject for more than 20 years.

Although we have no choice about being born, if we have read the Bible we know about these issues and can decide for ourselves if they are real and true. In this we do have free will, and a choice. You said -- "I think to maintain some kind of religion on the off-chance of meeting a creator is a betrayal of my worldview and of yours." This is true except for one thing. I have met the person Jesus. I have requested proof of his existence, and he showed it to me. I was in despair from a lifetime of suffering from a severe neurological disease (still am), and he came to me and comforted me. This is not something I made up, or imagined in my mind; it is as real as the house around me, the chair I am sitting in right now. I have tested the statements in Scripture and found them to be true, and they give meaning to an otherwise pointless life. That is EXACTLY the issue. Without this worldview, there IS no meaning. You have to decide for yourself which way you will go. I choose by faith ("the hope in things not seen") to place my "bet" on God, not because I want to escape damnation, but because without this hope I have no reason to continue to live here. Dying right now would be so easy. It's living that is hard, because (apparently) of sin. It brings such misery. But you have to believe in Truth, right and wrong. If you don't, then none of this is real, or really matters. Where does our sense of justice come from? Why do all cultures worship some god? Why all the death rituals? How did we become self-aware? Why do we ask WHY? If we are all just a collection of chemicals destined to molder in the ground, none of this would matter, would it? What is it in us that propels us to seek meaning? I cannot find any other explanation than that in Genesis. God made us, and made us like himself (in his image). HE gives us a soul which craves meaning and purpose, and people all over the world fill that void with drugs, sex, money, possessions, power, and entertainment. None of these things satisfy completely. Only he can fill that need.

"Separation of Church and God"
This is a great book that talks about the points you mentioned.

If you've ever walked home from church with more questions than answers or feeling like you've just wasted another hour of your life, you may want to investigate Jack Heckathorne's book, "The Separation of Church and God."
If you've given up on organized religion and by association, God, you may want to check out this book.

If you've come away from every encounter with organized religion, Christian or otherwise, determined that if there is indeed a God, he is simply too hard to fathom, I encourage you to read Heckathorne's book.

For those who have found little more than contradiction and hypocrisy in the local church and who now believe that apart from church you can have no part of God, this book will give you hope.

And for those who have believed and fallen, now believing there is no way back, Heckathorne delivers a message of promised restoration directly from the Bible.


According to Heckathorne, part of the fault so rampant in today's church lies in the multiple layers of tradition that have effectively shrouded the true gospel message of Christ over the millennia. In fact, the dissatisfaction people feel may be because the hunger and thirst innate to every man has yet to be satisfied in their lives.

Heckathorne appeals to the reader to discover again or anew the unvarnished, simple truth of the gospel and to turn from false teachings and traditions as if your very life depended on it.

His carefully researched publication is broken down into easy-to-read and easy-to-understand chapters, such as "What is God?", "What is Man?", "Are you Seeking Truth?","Satan, The Great Counterfeiter" and "Can You Lose Your Salvation?"

Heckathorne contends that the false teachings that abound in organized religion today are the direct result of deceptions brought about by God's enemy, the fallen angel, Satan, whom Jesus refers to as the "father of lies." in John 8:38:44. Man is particularly susceptible to Satan's lies, as first evidenced in the Garden of Eden when Eve believed the serpent when he said, "You shall be like God." (Genesis 3:5) Satan's fall set the stage for the battle between good and evil -- a battle which is waged yet today in people's actions, thoughts, way of life and, perhaps most significantly, in their belief's about Jesus Christ.

Heckathorne also maintains that the truth of who God is, man's true relationship to him, and the whole matter of sin can be discovered only through careful reading and focused study of Scripture and Scripture alone.

In his introductory remarks Heckathorne reveals, that "... Over the next 35 years I had a desire to learn more and more about the Bible. I studied unimpeded by erroneous religious doctrines or influential denominational affiliations. Because I could see the Bible as truth, and since I could see many practices in the church which were contradictory to it, I finally realized that I had to separate the church, any church, from God in my mind.

"I came to realize that God is perfect, and the local church is not.

"As I see it, the farther away from the basic fundamentals of the Scriptures a church becomes, the more they rely on man's flawed logic and imagination, and the more corrupt they become."

There are no "sacred cows" in Heckathorne's observations. He calls to task faith healers, the worship of idols, gay marriage, the purpose of tithing as well as evolution and its negative impact on faith. He settles the issue of salvation by grace (Ephesians 2:8, 9) and yet offers evidence that a living faith is made visible only by works (James 2:18).

Dawn Cribbs - McCook County Gazette

sdan
I really think you're better off with pelagianism; original sin is a desperate and grubby lie started by our dear old Catholic friends. They invented a disease then promised the cure!

"Where does our sense of justice come from?"

Perhaps the tension between "survival of the fittest" and the benefits to be had by working as a community, ie: I'll cooperate for the good of all, as long as no individual is trying to gain a personal advantage.

"Why do all cultures worship some god?"

Because we had a big, curious brain before we had microscopes, telescopes and brain imaging technology, and we needed to find patterns and explanations for those patterns even to the exclusion of logic.

"Why all the death rituals?"

Why other rituals?

"How did we become self-aware?"

You do ask the easy ones! (not...) What is self-aware? Are cats self-aware? How about carrots?

"Why do we ask WHY?"

Evolutionary advantage in being able to find patterns - to predict, to thing ahead, to plan to find food, a mate...

"If we are all just a collection of chemicals destined to molder in the ground, none of this would matter, would it?"

NO NO NO, of course it matters! This is where religion is dead. The philosophy of death: a man had to die to save us, we can only find true paradise when we die, it is a priviledge to die serving god, perish little children to come unto me, and so onnnnnnn.
Contrast that with: you have on average perhaps 80 orbits of the sun (or possibly much less) to be an unimaginably unlikely guest on a rollercoaster ride round the universe, which would exist whether you had been born to observe it or not. Your biggest challenge will be to work out the actions and motivations of your fellow travellers and perhaps comprehend how the laws of nature could have colluded to produce this circus from such bizarre stuff as space-time. The big question "WHY?" is self-evidently a pointless question. It happened, there really is no answer unless we can get to the bottom of the big bang, or a better theory. How the obsession with the big "WHY" motivates people to turn to a death cult, I've no idea!

Stu, Keith
Thanks for hangin' in there with me. You are giving my brain a work-out.

I cannot fully embrace Pelagianism because one of its tenets is that I can live a sinless life if I exert my will sufficiently. It's already too late for that.

You said: "NO NO NO, of course it matters! This is where religion is dead. The philosophy of death: a man had to die to save us, we can only find true paradise when we die, it is a priviledge to die serving god, perish little children to come unto me, and so onnnnnnn. Contrast that with: you have on average perhaps 80 orbits of the sun (or possibly much less) to be an unimaginably unlikely guest on a rollercoaster ride round the universe, which would exist whether you had been born to observe it or not. Your biggest challenge will be to work out the actions and motivations of your fellow travellers and perhaps comprehend how the laws of nature could have colluded to produce this circus from such bizarre stuff as space-time. The big question "WHY?" is self-evidently a pointless question. It happened, there really is no answer unless we can get to the bottom of the big bang, or a better theory. How the obsession with the big "WHY" motivates people to turn to a death cult, I've no idea!"

This is why Turek titled his book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". I see you making a tremendous leap of "faith" here. "No NO -- Of course it matters!" Say what?? You say that to ask "Why?" is self-evidently pointless. This is illogical (sorry, Mr. Spock). It "matters", but you are not explaining why, except to say we need to "comprehend" or "work out the actions and motivations of (our) fellow travelers". Again, why? In fact, you are saying there IS no why. So -- logically it DOESN'T matter. If the "death cult" is dead", I see you offering no alternative. You do not need one. Perhaps you are planning not to die? In fact, you purposely avoid developing any ideas about what to do when individuals do not "cooperate for the good of all", thereby "gaining personal advantage". Throughout history, this is the norm, not the exception in human behavior. Veryyyy few people, if in fact any, have ever lived as fully cooperative so as not to experience any personal advantage. So your idea about justice is illogical, because evolutionarily we turned out exactly the opposite.

Keith -- the book is of great interest to me. I shall place it second in line at the library. Thanks!

sdan
Patterns again. We are hard-wired to look for them. Our technology is an extrordinary (for the animal kingdom) set of extended phenotypes that result from our search to understand.
I think we have pretty much explained HOW we came to be here, or at least in principle are capable of explaining it in purely naturalistic terms. Perhaps my "faith" is that we will find further answers for ourselves (although this use of faith is vastly different to the "apart from logic" sense of the religious).

What is the purpose of a rock? I think if you can find the answer to that, you have come close to the WHY answer too. The problem is, there isn't an answer. Douglas Adams's Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a brilliant satirical take on our obsessional search for an answer that in itself has no meaning. If you need a god to fill your gaps, that's fine, but it's a fairy that shrinks by the hour!

Busy little guys while I've been away...
Hey Stu,

First, let's be clear about science - it is the alter you worship at, in and of itself a religion. You said yourself; You have FAITH that SCIENCE will eventually work it out - this with a straight face after deriding us because you had some impression that we do the same with an omnipotent God. (heck, at least our God's omnipotent.) And THIS despite the many, many, many historical and well documented failures of and the everchanging nature of 'science'. Todays solution tomorrows problem and visa versa.

Second, science, no matter how complex, is nothing more at the end of the day than on such and such a day, at such and such a time, I observed X. In fact each time Y conditions were present, I observed X. That's it. Any claim beyond that is no longer 'science.' It is by definition pure speculative fantasy. Can you not see that 'Science' is not adequate to respond to moral questions and can never be so. It can describe it, but it can't source it. It's scope doesn't encompass those issues. For example, a being from outside our world, who didn't understand the language could observe mankind from a distance and never have a clue as to what his 'moral' beliefs were, or if he even had moral beliefs in the first place. They would see some men acting one way, some another, and some another still in infinite variations and varieties of complex behavior - none totally 'good' and some totally depraved. There would be no rhyme, reason or sure-fire predictors of these behaviors to key on. The only reason we have a clue is because we have 'inside' information - we ARE men. We know. In Dawkins theory on extended phenotypes - and it is only theoretical (and there are books upon books debunking it - that's old science btw - 1982? you say extended phenotypes and i say irreducible complexity - they're both speculative, but mine at least has logic going for it.), there is no similar 'inside' information that a gene 'knows' (sans an intelligent mind no less, hello?) a given necessary outcome and works to produce it - anywhere in the equation. Heck, there's no equation - just serious extrapolation coupled with speculation. Beyond that, answer everything you want about it and you are no closer to 'proving' your case. At best you're discovering features of a production mechanism that has the same thing to say about it's 'product' that any assembly line does - nothing. In short, extended pheno-types get you no closer to an understanding of 'morality.' Nor can science, just by virture of what it is and what it is not.

As for ethical atheist, there can be no such thing. If there is not God, then what is the 'standard' of behavior - who's ethics then are we appealing to? Yours? Mine? SDans? Hitlers? Certainly not the ethics of 'biology' - mother nature is not sentinent, she has none. All of us are merely men. In fact, by even bringing up the point, you acknowledge that there is a standard. And what we could agree to at that point is that A - there is a standard that makes up ethical and moral behavior, B - Men by and large seem to instinctively understand this and largely agree on it with slight variations, and C - nobody maintains that standard perfectly. D - You refer to our worldview as a culture of death in complete contradistinction to factual history. (Also showing that you just flat-out don't have any conception whatsoever of what Christ is all about.) The fact is that it is once acknowledgement of the 'standard' disappears that Death shows up in a big way. (See: Communism. 100+ MIL served last century and off to a great start in this one! 180+ counting abortion! woo-hoo!!) If that standard it is not instinct - reread my comments on competing instincts in prior post - and supercedes biological imperative, what is it's source? I'll state it again, your worldview isn't within a million miles of comporting an answer. You're not even working with the right tools to do so.

Lastly, while I can agree on the importance of science as a tool, I can't then understand why you're so selective in the science you're willing to consult. Do you believe in 'statistics?' Do you believe in the descriptive nature of 'probability?' Why do you accept it as valid for determing some things but not others? Do you not find the long probablilities for 'life' daunting? The case for atheism was much stronger back in the days of steady state universe, but when they hypothesized the big bang and then started finding a universe full of supporting data your 'odds' went light years beyond impossible (beyond 10 to the 22nd). 14 BIL years is just not enough time, and the age of the universe has consistently been lowered - not raised - as better data became available.

What about the apparent 'impossibility' of the pre-cambrian explosion? 29 brand spanking new body types of infinite complexity almost literally out of thin air over a few hundred thousand years? Darwin himself said that if such a thing were ever discovered it'd be the end of his 'theory' - which doesn't even rise to the level of theory but is in reality a framework for other theories. And there are limitless disconnects just like this in your reliance up 'science' and 'science only.'

You've built an entire worldview on such as this. Theories, subject to infinite change - built to satisfy your personal comfort, until the next comes along. If I HAD to take only one set of tools with me, I would take the solidity of logical syllogism over this mush any day of the week. Theories will come and go. The multiplication tables will be here forever, whether man is or not.

You started posting on this thread saying that we were all non-thinking mouthbreathers. We gave you several posts to show that in fact our heads were in the game. Not just our game, but yours as well. Your response to THAT was to say, 'well, I'll stick with science cause the idea of God just leaves me feeling cold.' An anti-intellectual response if I've ever read one. (As if any of our 'feelings' on the issue had any importance what so ever.) You follow that up with several arguments that begin by begging the question, and the assumption of authority where none exists. (You can't just fling unrelated mud in the air and think I won't notice bub) Your entire worldview is in fact based on one unending string of contiguous IF statements, the vast majority of which are unproved, and some of which are unprovable. And you don't even see it much less find it 'odd.' You see, it is not that people here aren't willing or don't understand your view my friend. Having been you, we understand it even better than you - in it's totality, not just from the inside.

An omnipotent God can reach you anywhere in any way. But you have to look for Him too. Without that piece there is no free will. Science? Pick one. Pick all. Philosophy? Yep - compare the quality of thought between early christian apologists like Augustine with enlightment era philosophers and you tell me. Math - oh yeah, absolutely - was the start for me, particularly the organic nature of currency market derivatives. Logic? Where do you think it came from? His name IS LOGOS. The only way you won't find him is if your agenda means more to you than He does. That's the universal deal we all get.

Sadly, I think in the end your line about the universe being too interesting to be a marionette was telling. The desire to be in control, our own God so to speak, is universal. I'm sure it's just coincidence that my world view says that's the exact position 'man' is in here - and moreso that it's the only worldview that does. Logically speaking, the beauty of an omnipotent (G)od is that it matters little what we think of Him. What He thinks of us is what's critical. Here me clearly now. You can deny all you want. You can ignore all you want. You can say that you see NO signs of 'intelligence' (in the information theory sense) behind any of this - all looks completely random to you. You can deny all of the patterns in the static as much as you want. You have the right to do all of this and more - as given to you by Him. And someday, you will have the right NOT to live under his authority in any way shape or form. But, if He is the author of all good, when he goes and leaves you alone, he is taking all of the things that are his with him. a material universe? good - gone. smell of fresh air? good - gone. suppleness, texture and sensitivity of skin? good - gone. flavor of food? good - gone. joy of laughter? good - gone. the sublime loveliness of good, decent companionship? good - gone. just you, only you, what's left, forever and ever in the screaming yawning abyss of eternity. and who will you blame then? just by virtue of this conversation you won't be able to say you didn't know, that you weren't given a chance, you didn't know what you were choosing. there won't be any denial or hiding from the one who can see what you're thinking and feeling every moment of your life. today, you are a narcoleptic sleeping in burning building. and i may be the last fireman sent your way. as a 'brother' I'm telling you to drop the b.s. and start reading like your life depended on it. i'll wish you luck, and yes, trite as it sounds, i'll pray for you, for a softer heart and a shrewder, more critical mind. peace out...

Well....
I can't really add anything to that, except to say I was an empiricist and skeptic from 1967-1987, and still am to some degree. I identify closely with "doubting Thomas" in the New Testament. I need proof. I hadn't picked up the Bible for 20 years. I still don't read it as often as I should, and cannot seem to overcome my tendency to eschew group activities (e.g., church services).

But I never forgot what I was taught as a child -- that God has no desire to have us come to him with blinders on. In fact, he requires that we search for proofs of his being, and that we use the minds he gave us to seek and understand him. Unthinking robots need not apply. This is good, because I have a great need for concepts, desires, ideas, and motivations to make rational sense. So I start with the literal statement that we are "made in his image". I think (reason, deduce, imagine, calculate), so HE must think (etc.). I can love (feel emotions), so HE must be able to as well. I ask questions, and answers (usually) come, and not always the way I would imagine. I am aware of a presence, even as I write this. It's not like a ghost (if there are such things), but more a kindred spirit, pushing me forward in my thinking and actions. Not to sound too corny, but for lack of a better word -- a friend.

I know I would have died a few years ago if I had lost all hope. Years of orthopedic surgery, loss of my large intestine with inability to eat in public ever again (just stop and reflect on how much of human society is based on communal consumption of food), and then a series of blood clots in my legs and then my lungs. Many times I was destitute, but never quite hopeless enough to do myself in. I wanted to, and planned it many times. But I have some instinct inside which tells me that it is possible to find the answers to my questions, and I have hope. My little life seems infinitesimal next to God's creation, yet he is quietly explaining to me that I matter to him somehow, and that you do too. That's reason enough for me.

Hey SDan ~
Joni Eareckson Tada - heard an interview with this woman that blew me away. She has written many books and I haven't read them, but after having heard her story - think she may be of some inspiration for you. She was paralyzed (neck down) in a diving accident while a teenager and has lived that way ever since. You'll have to read for yourself what she did with it. She knows test by trial as well as anyone I've ever heard, and communicates her utter lack of bitterness over the experience better (more rationally) than anyone I'd ever come across before or since. check out http://www.equip.org - know you'll find it there. Best of luck to you, and remember - we are not the sum of our trials and tribulations. These things in and of themselves are meaningless. It is our responses to them that give meaning to our lives and relationships. peace.

Joni
Joni and I are the same age. I met her (long before her last name became Tada) back in college, about two years after her accident in 1967. I knew her as an artist who painted using her mouth to hold the brushes. She was just beginning to speak at churches and schools about her life and the accident. I was involved in an organization called "Open Air Campaigners", started by Art Williams out of NYC. We met each weekend in Soho, Chinatown, or Greenwich Village to preach on the corners. I also worked at McCauley Water Street Mission in the Bowery for about four years. During my teens I was very active in outreach programs from NJ to Chicago, and as far north as Nova Scotia. I worked some of the Billy Graham crusades as well, as my mother and pastor were classmates of he and his wife (Ruth Bell) at Wheaton College (IL) back in the 40's.

Physical pain is something I learned to control with my mind before I was 21. Psychological pain came from jeering peers, and that has not been a problem as an adult. But I closed myself off from God for many, many years. Those years are gone and can never be reclaimed. So now I try as best I can to spread a little light when and where I am able. The computer has been a great help for me, and I have met many interesting people since 1998.

I spent two years over at the boards at PBS.org where I was constantly savaged for my ideas and beliefs. It's easier over here, as there is a much more diverse population and I feel I can at least get a word in edge-wise once in a while without being beaten up.

Homer
Just as well for you that ignorance isn't a felony.

i'd say that's weird....
you know,...but it's not. glad then, because you know her perspective better than i do.

you get a few nuttier than avg. trolls here, but not too bad as these things go. (stu isn't one of them, he was actually very polite.) welcome aboard and nice to meet you.

oh - you were spot on, Achilles is the laptop id.

Well Stu. Okay.
best of luck to you.

Seriously? You got nothin' else?
For a guy that started by comparatively bragging about his intellect while ridiculing the thoughts of others, this is a pretty disappointing turn in the conversation. If you were a commercial operation they'd be suing for false advertisement. Not surprising mind you - you're not the first troll to publically punk out, you won't be the last, and I have the feeling you're probably even used to it by now. Probably happens A LOT to you. (Doesn't that ever get old btw?) Then again, you can easily get that idea when the only people you argue with are those who agree with you. (A man who falls in a lake knows he's wet, a fish on the other hand does not. I hereby name you 'Shorelunch.') Unfortunately for you, you're now in a place where non-sequitors don't go unnoticed...will look forward to responding to ALL of your posts. That way I can serve as your foil to further illuminate your brilliance. I am a servant after all. It'll be fun! You'll see! ;)

Comments on Evolution for The Scientists
Evolutionists claim that animals, plants and humans evolved gradually over millions of years and that certain features, such as the eye, evolved as time went along. Is this really even logical?

Lets look at the human body as a whole in a bit more detail and not just accept the word of some college professor who is paid to teach such things. First of all science has never proven that humans evolved. To the contrary. The more we advance in science the more we realize that all life forms come from information contained in DNA. DNA is a set of instructions on how to build a person to put it simply. Think of it as a computer program. Once the program is put into the computer it will do whatever it was designed to do. Nothing else. DNA is much the same except it is light years ahead and far more complicated than any computer program.

It will build whatever organism it was designed to build. Dogs are always dogs, roses are roses, people are people. There are different kinds of each of course and they can be crossbred within the kind. For example you can breed a greyhound and a collie and get a dog with features of both. What you cant get is a cat or a horse. Why? Because the DNA has no instructions on building a horse or a cat. In the case of mutated genes the same is true. A mutation might cause a cow to have an extra leg but it will never cause a cow to have feathers.

You can only get a scrambled version of the information which is already present. Mutations can not add anything new to DNA because the information is not available. Evolutionists call crossbreeding micro evolution and claim that micro evolution causes (somehow) Macro evolution which is the changing of one animal into an other animal. This goes against all scientific knowledge. This is the basis for the idea that features on an organism develop over time. This is flawed thinking to say the least. How could any organism reproduce over thousands of generations before the ability and the organs to reproduce evolved? Of course it could not have.

The ability to reproduce had to be present at the very beginning. The same could be said of the heart, stomach, lungs, nervous system, brain etc. No matter how primitive the organism was or how small its size, all of the vital organs had to exist at the very beginning.

No organ could survive on its own and no organism can survive without its many vital organs and systems. No part of an airplane will fly on its own. A wheel wont fly, a propeller wont fly, a wing wont fly, fuel wont fly.

To say that organs evolved as time went along is to say that a plane built itself while it was flying in the air. It could be said that an airplane is made up of non flying parts. Nothing works unless it all works. Anyone knows that every airplane was designed and built by an intelligence.

And we were designed and built in the beginning by an intelligence far greater than our own.

By Jack Heckathorne, "Separation of Church and God"
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.